c? 


:Tr.' 


Jl^>jiil|l,Tp71.l|l|l.l.l.l.l.l,l,l|l,l,l.l,l,l,l,l|l,l,l,l, Ill  |l, 1. 1. 1. 


VolQ,XJ,4.,.  ....    I 

Class  JVo.^^.^i^y...     \ 
Cost .  .  i  .  H-r: .... 


PRESENTED  BY 


._! 


JUIiltJAiTTITpii.iil.i.i.i.i.i.i.iMTTlTnTr.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.iti^yjjjyj^^ 


?2 


O    A 


BOOK    220.7.EX76    ser.4    v.4    c.  1 
#    EXPOSITORS    BIBLE 


3    T153    DQObSbn    1 


m^'^ 
^'\ 


life'-  1^^' 


;v'^'1. 


THE    EXPOSITOR'S    BIBLE 


EDITED  BY  THE  REV. 

W.    ROBERTSON    NICOLL,    M.A.,    LL.D. 

Editor  of  "  The  Expositor,"  etc. 


THE     BOOK     OF     LEVITICUS 

BY  THE   REV. 

S.     H.     KELLOGG,     D.D. 

Toronto,  Canada 


NEW  YORK 

A.    C    ARMSTRONG    AND    SON 

51    EAST    TENTH    STREET 
1899 


THE     EXPOSITOR'S     BIBLE. 

Crown  8vo,  cloth,  price  Si '50  each  vol. 


First  Series,  1887-8. 

Colosslans. 

By  Rev.  A.  Maclaren,  D.D. 

St.  Mark. 

By  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Deny. 

Genesis. 

By  Prof.  Marcus  Dods,  D.D. 

1  Samuel. 

By  Prof.  W.  G.  Blaikik,  D.D. 

2  Samuel. 

By  the  same  Author. 

Hebrews. 

By  Principal  T.  C.  Edwards,  D.D. 
Second  Series,  1888-9. 

Galatians. 

By  Prof.  G.  G.  Findlay,  B.A. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles. 

By  Rev.  A.  Plummer,  D.D. 

Isaiah  i. — xxxix. 

ByProf.  G.  A.  Smith,  D.D.     Vol.  1 
The  Book  of  Revelation. 
By  Prof.  W.  Milligan,  D.D. 

1  Corinthians 

By  Prof.  Marcus  Dods,  D.D. 
The  Epistles  of  St.  John. 

By    Most    Rev.    the    Archbishop    of 
Armagh. 

Third  Series,  1889-90. 

Judges  and  Ruth. 

By  Rev.  R.  A.  Watson,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Jeremiah. 

By  Rev.  C.  J.  Ball,  M.A. 

Isaiah  xl. — lxvi. 

By  Prof.  G.  A.  Smith,  D.D.    Vol.  II. 
St.  Matthew. 

By  Rev.  J.  Monro  Gibson,  D.D. 
Exodus. 

By  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Denry. 

St.  Luke. 

By  Rev.  H.  Burton,  M.A. 
Fourth  Series,  1890-91. 
Ecclesiastes. 

By  Rev.  Samuel  Cox,  D.D. 
St.  James  and  St.  Jude. 

By  Rev.  A.  Plummhr,  D.D. 

Proverbs. 

By  Rev.  R.  F.  Horton,  D.D. 

Leviticus. 

By  Rev.  S.  H.  Kellogg,  D.D. 
The  Gospel  of  St.  John. 

By  Prof.  M.  Dods,  D.D.    Vol.  I. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

By  Prof.  Stokes,  D.D.     Vol,  I. 


Fifth  Series,  1891-2. 
The  Psalms. 

By  Rev.  A.  Maclaren,  D.D.  Vol.  I. 
1  and  2  Thessalonians. 

By  Rev.  James  Dennev,  D.D. 

The  Book  of  Job. 

By  Rev.  R.  A.  Watson,  M.A.,  D.D. 
Ephesians. 

By  Prof.  G.  G.  Findlay,  B.A. 
The  Gospel  of  St.  John. 

By  Prof.  M.  Dods,  D.D.    Vol.  II. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

By  Prof.  Stokes,  D.D.    Vol.  II. 
Sixth  Series,  1892-3. 

1  Klngfs. 

By  Very  Rev.  the  Dean  of  Canterbury. 

Philippians. 

By  Principal  Rainy,  D.D. 

Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther. 

By  Prof  W.  F.  Adenby,  M.A. 

Joshua. 

By  Prof.  W.  G.  Blaikie,  D.D. 

The  Psalms. 

By  Rev.  A.  Maclaren,  D.D.  Vol.  11. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Peter. 
By  Prof  Rawson  Lumbv,  D.D. 

Seventh  Series,  1893-4. 

2  Kings. 

By  Very  Rev.  the  Dean  of  Canterbury. 
Romans. 

By  Rev.  H.  C.  G.  Moule,  M.A.,D.D. 
The  Books  of  Chronicles. 

By  Prof.  W.  H.  Bennett,  M.A. 

2  Corinthians. 

By  Rev.  James  Denney,  D.D. 
Numbers. 

By  Rev.  R.  A.  Watson,  M.A.,  D.D. 

The  Psalms. 

By  Rev.  A.  Maclaren,  D.D.  Vol.  III. 
Eighth  Series,  1895-6. 
Daniel. 

By  Very  Rev.  the  Dean  of  Canterbury. 

The  Book  of  Jeremiah. 

By  Prof.  W.  H.  Bennett,  M.A. 

Deuteronomy. 

By  Prof.  Andrew  Harper,  B.D. 

The    Song    of    Solomon    and 
Lamentations, 

By  Prof.  W.  F.  Adeney,  M.A. 

Ezekiel. 

By  Prof.  John  Skinner,  M.A. 

The     Book     of    the     Twelve 
Prophets. 

ByProf.  G.A.Smith,  D.D.  Two  Vols. 


THE 

BOOK    OF    LEVITICUS 


BY  THE    REV. 

S.     H.     KELLOGG,     D.D. 

AUTHOR  OF 

"the   jews;   or,    prediction  and   fulfilment,"    "the   light   of   ASIA 

AND  THE   LIGHT  OF  THE   WORLD,"   ETC. 


THIRD    EDITION 


PLEASE  NOTE 


It  has  been  necessary  to  replace  some  of  the  original 
pages  in  this  book  with  photocopy  reproductions 
because  of  damage  or  mistreatment  by  a  previous  user. 

Replacement  of  damaged  materials  is  both  expensive 
and  time-consuming.  Please  handle  this  volume  with 
care  so  that  information  will  not  be  lost  to  future  readers. 

Thank  you  for  helping  to  preserve  the  University's 
research  collections. 


THE     EXPOSITOR'S     BIBLE. 

Crown  Svo,  cloth ,  price  Si '50  each  vol. 


First  Seriks,  1887-8. 
Colosslans. 

By  Rev.  A.  Maclarbn,  D.D. 

St.  Mark. 

By  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Derry 

Genesis. 

By  Prof.  Marcus  Dods,  D.D. 

1  Samuel. 

By  Prof.  W,  G.  Blaikie,  D.D. 

2  Samuel. 

By  the  same  Author. 

Hebrews. 

By  Principal  T.  C.  Edwards,  D.D 
Second  Series,  1888-9. 

Galatlans. 

By  Prof.  G.  G.  Findlay,  B.A. 
The  Pastoral  Epistles. 

By  Rev.  A.  Plummer,  D.D. 

Isaiah  i. — xxxix. 

ByProf.  G.  A.  Smith,  D.D. 

The  Book  of  Revelation. 

By  Prof.  W.  Milligan,  HJi. 
1  Corinthians 

By  Prof.  Marcus  Dods,  D.D. 
The  Epistles  of  St.  John. 

By    Most    Rev.    the    Archbishop 
Armagh. 

Third  Series,  1889-90. 

Judges  and  Ruth. 

By  Rev.  R.  A.  Watson,  M.A.,  D 

Jeremiah. 

By  Rev.  C.  J.  Ball,  M.A. 

Isaiah  xl. — lxvi. 

By  Prof.  G.  A.  Smith, D.D.    Vol. 
St.  MatthAXAi. 


Vol.  1 


of 


II. 


Fifth  Series,  1891-2. 

The  Psalms. 

By  Rev.  A.  Maclarkn,  D.D.   Vol.  I. 
1  and  2  Thessalonians. 

By  Rev.  James  Dennhy,  D.D. 

The  Book  of  Job. 

By  Rev.  R.  A.  Watson,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Ephesians. 

By  Prof.  G.  G.  Findlay,  B.A. 
The  Gospel  of  St.  John. 

By  Prof.  M.  Dods,  D.D.    Vol.  II. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

By  Prof.  Stokes,  D.D.    Vol.  II. 
Sixth  Series,  1892-3. 

1  Kings. 

By  Very  Rev.  the  Dean  of  Canterbury. 

Philippians. 

By  Principal  Rainy,  D.D. 

Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther. 

By  Prof  W.  F.  Adeney,  M.A. 

Joshua. 

By  Prof.  W.  G.  Blaikib,  D.D. 
The  Psalms. 

By  Rev.  A.  Maclaren,  D.D.  Vol.  11. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Peter. 
By  Prof.  Rawson  Lumby,  D.D. 

Seventh  Series,  1893-4, 

2  Kings. 

By  Very  Rev.  the  Dean  of  Canterbury. 

Romans. 

By  Rev.  H.  C.  G.  Moule,  M.A.,D.D. 
The  Books  of  Chronicles. 

By  Prof.  W.  H.  Bennett,  M.A. 

2  Corinthians. 

By  Rev.  James  Dknnrv   n  rk 


THE 

BOOK    OF    LEVITICUS 


BY  THE   REV. 

S.     H.     KELLOGG,     D.D. 

AUTHOR  OF 

"the   jews;   or,   prediction  and   fulfilment,"    "the   light  of  ASIA 

AND  the   light   OF  THE   WORLD,"   ETC. 


THIRD    EDITION 


NEW    YORK 

A.    C.    ARMSTRONG    AND    SON 

51    EAST    TENTH    STREET 
1899 


8  17  4, 


Printed  by  Hasell,  Watson,  6*  Viney,  London  and  Aylesbury,  England. 


CONTENTS. 

PART    I. 

THE    TABERNACLE     WORSHIP. 
(Lev.  i.-x.,  xvi.) 

CHAPTER   I. 

PAGE 
INTRODUCTORY   (i.  l) 3 

The  Origin  and  Authority  of  Leviticus,  5. — The  Occasion  and 
Plan  of  Leviticus,  18. — The  Purpose  of  Leviticus,  20. — 
The  Present-day  use  of  Leviticus,  24. 

CHAPTER   n. 

SACRIFICE  :   THE   BURNT-OFFERING   (i.  2-4)      .  .  .  .29 

The  Ritual  of  the  Burnt-offering,  36. — The  Presentation  of 
the  Victim,  39.— 'The  Laying  on  of  the  Hand,  41. 

CHAPTER   HL 

THE   BURNT-OFFERING  [CONCLUDED]   (i.  5-I7  ;   vi.  8-I3).  .      47 

The  Killing  of  the  Victim,  47. — The  Sprinkling  of  the  Blood, 
48. — The  Sacrificial  Burning,  50. — The  Continual  Burnt- 
offering,  59. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   MEAL-OFFERING   (ii.  I-16  ;   vi.  1 4-23)        .  .  ,  .63 

The  Daily  Meal-ofTering,  79. 

CHAPTER   V. 
THE  PEACE-OFFERING  (iii.  1-17  ;  vii.  11-34;  xix.  5-8;   xxii. 

21-25) .     82 

The  Prohibition  of  Fat  and  Blood,  99. — Thank-offerings, 
Vows,  and  Freewill-offerings,  104 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

PAGE 
THE   SIN-OFFERING   (iv.  I-35) IO9 

Graded  Responsibility,  120. 

CHAPTER   VII. 

THE   RITUAL    OF    THE    SIN-OFFERING    (iv.    4-35  ;   V.    I-I3  ;   V\. 

24-30) 134 

The  Sprinkling  of  the  Blood,  136. — The  Sanctity  of  the  Sin- 
oflfering.  150. 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

THE   GUILT-OFFERING   (v.  I4  ;   W.  7;   vii.   I-/).  .  .  -155 

CHAPTER   IX. 

THE   PRIESTS'   PORTIONS   (vi.    16-18,  26;    \\\.    6-IO,    I4,  3I-36)   I75 

CHAPTER   X. 

THE   CONSECRATION   OF   AARON   AND   HIS   SONS,   AND   OF   THE 

TABERNACLE   (viii.   I -36) 181 

The  Levitical  Priesthood  and  Tabernacle  as  Types,  1S4. — The 
Washing  with  Water,  190. — The  Investiture,  191. — The 
Anointing,  201. — The  Consecration  Sacrifices,  204. 

CHAPTER   XI. 
THE   INAUGURATION   OF   THE  TABERNACLE  SERVICE   (ix.  I -24)   219 
The  Double  Benediction,  231. 

CHAPTER   XII. 

NADAB'S   and  ABIHUS    "STRANGE   FIRE "   (x.    1-20)  .  .    237 

Mourning  in  Silence,  247. — Carefulness  aftei  Judgment,  250. 
CHAPTER   XIII. 

THE  GREAT   DAY   OF   ATONEMENT   (xvi.   I-34)  .  .  •  .   256 

Azazel,  264. 


CONTENTS.  vii 


PART    II. 

THE    LAW   OF   THE    DAILY  LIFE, 
(Lev.  xi.-xv. ;  xvii.-xxv.) 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

PAGE 
CLEAN   AND   UNCLEAN    ANIMALS,    AND   DEFILEMENT   BY   DEAD 

BODIES  (xi.  1-47) 277 

CHAPTER  XV. 

OF  THE  UNCLEANNESS  OF   ISSUES   (xv.  I -3 3)  ,  .  .   305 

CHAPTER   XVI. 

THE   UNCLEANNESS  OF  CHILD-BEARING  (xii.  1-8)    .  .  •    313 

The    Ordinance    of   Circumcision,    315. — Purification    after 
Child-birth,  320. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE  UNCLEANNESS  OF  LEPROSY  (xiii.  I -46)  ....  327 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  LEPER  (xiv.  I-32)     .  .  •  .    34$ 

Leprosy  in  a  Garment  or  House,  358. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

HOLINESS  IN   EATING   (xvii.  I-16) 367 

CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  LAW  OF   HOLINESS:   CHASTITY   (xviil.  I-30)     .  •  .    379 

CHAPTER    XXI. 

THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS   [CONCLUDED]   (xix.  I-37)  .  •  .   39I 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

PENAL  SANCTIONS   (XX.  I -27) 418 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

THE  LAW  OF  PRIESTLY   HOLINESS   (xxi.  I-Xxii.  33)  ,  .   432 


sriii  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

PAGE 
THE  SET  FEASTS  OF   THE   LORD   (xxiii.  I -44)  ....   447 

The  Weekly  Sabbath,  453. — Passover  and  Unleavened  Bread, 
455. — Pentecost,  459. — The  Feast  of  Trumpets,  461.— 
The  Day  of  Atonement,  463. — The  Feast  of  Tabernacles, 
464. — Typical  Meaning  of  the  ^Feasts  of  the  Seventh 
Month,  468. 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

'^fS5^^HOj;T  LIGHT  AND  THE  SHEW-BREAD  :   THE  BLASPHEMER'S 

"end  (xxiv.  1-23) 474 

The  "Bread  of  the  Presence,"  477.— The  Penalty  of  Blas- 
phemy, 480. 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

THE  SABBATIC  YEAR   AND  THE  JUBILEE    (XXV.  I-55)       .  .   487 

The  Jubilee,  489.— The  Jubilee  and  the  Land,  491. — The 
Jubilee  and  Dwelling-houses,  494. — The  Jubilee  and 
Slavery,  497. — Practical  Objects  of  the  Sabbatic  Year 
and  the  Julailee,  502. — Typical  Significance  of  the  Sabbatic 
and  Jubilee  Years,  510. 


PART  III. 

CONCLUSION  AND    APPENDIX, 
(Lev.  xxvi.,  xxvii.) 

CHAPTER   XXVII. 

THE  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT  (xXvi.  I-46)  519 

The  Promises  of  the  Covenant,  521. — "  The  Vengeance  of  the 
Covenant,"  522  — The  Promised  Restoration,  534. 

CHAPTER  XXVIIL 

CONCERNING  VOWS   (xXVii.  I-34) 54I 

The  Vowing  of  Persons,  542. — The  Vowing  of  Domestic 
Animals,  545. — The  Vowing  of  Houses  and  Fields,  546. — 
The  Vow  in  New  Testament  Ethics,  549. — Exclusions 
from  the  Vow,  553. — The  Law  of  the  Ban,  554. — The 
Law  of  the  Tithe,  559. 


PART   I. 
THE   TABERNACLE   WORSHIP, 

I.-X.,  XVI. 


Section  i.    The  Law  of  the  Offerings:  i.-vi 
Section  2.    The    Institution    of  the    Tabernacle 
Service  :  viii.-x. 

(i)  The  Consecraiion  of  the  Priesthood:  vii. 

(2)  The  Induction  of  the  Priesthood  :  ix.,  x. 
Section  3.  The  Day  of  Atonement  :  xvi. 


CHAPTER   I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

"  And  the  Lord  called  unto  Moses,  and  spake  unto  him  out  of  the 
tent  of  meeting." — Lev.  i.  i. 

PERHAPS  no  book  in  the  Bible  presents  to  the 
ordinary  reader  so  many  and  peculiar  difficulties 
as  the  book  of  Leviticus.  Even  of  those  who  devoutly 
believe,  as  they  were  taught  in  their  childhood,  that, 
like  all  the  other  books  contained  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, it  is  to  be  received  throughout  with  unquestioning 
faith  as  the  very  Word  of  God,  a  large  number  will 
frankly  own  in  a  discouraged  way  that  this  is  with 
them  merely  a  matter  of  belief,  which  their  personal 
experience  in  reading  the  book  has  for  the  most  part 
failed  to  sustain ;  and  that  for  them  so  to  see  through 
symbol  and  ritual  as  to  get  much  spiritual  profit  from 
such  reading  has  been  quite  impossible. 

A  larger  class,  while  by  no  means  denying  or 
doubting  the  original  Divine  authority  of  this  book, 
yet  suppose  that  the  elaborate  ritual  of  the  Levitical 
law,  with  its  multiplied,  minute  prescriptions  regarding 
matters  religious  and  secular,  since  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation has  now  long  passed  away,  neither  has  nor 
can  have  any  living  relation  to  present-day  questions 
of  Christian   belief  and   practice ;  and   so,   under  this 


THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


impression,  they  very  naturally  trouble  themselves  little 
with  a  book  which,  if  they  are  right,  can  now  only  be 
of  special  interest  to  the  religious  antiquarian. 

Others,  again,  while  sharing  this  feeling,  also  confess 
to  a  great  difficulty  which  they  feel  in  believing  that 
many  of  the  commands  of  this  law  can  ever  have  been 
really  given  by  inspiration  from  God.  The  extreme 
severity  of  some  of  the  laws,  and  what  seems  to  them 
to  be  the  arbitrary  and  even  puerile  character  of  other 
prescriptions,  appear  to  them  to  be  irreconcilable,  in 
the  one  case,  with  the  mercy,  in  the  other,  with  the 
dignity  and  majesty,  of  the  Divine  Being. 

With  a  smaller,  but,  it  is  to  be  feared,  an  increasing 
number,  this  feeling,  either  of  indifference  or  of  doubt, 
regarding  the  book  of  Leviticus,  is  further  strengthened 
by  their  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  in  our  day  its 
Mosaic  origin  and  inspired  authority  is  strenuously 
denied  by  a  large  number  of  eminent  scholars,  upon 
grounds  which  they  claim  to  be  strictly  scientific.  And 
if  such  Christians  do  not  know  enough  to  decide  for 
themselves  on  its  merits  the  question  thus  raised,  they 
at  least  know  enough  to  have  a  very  uncomfortable 
doubt  whether  an  intelligent  Christian  has  any  longer 
a  right  to  regard  the  book  as  in  any  true  sense  the 
Word  of  God ;  and — what  is  still  more  serious — they 
feel  that  the  question  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  any  one  who  is  not  a  specialist  in  Hebrew 
and  the  higher  criticism  to  reach  any  well-grounded 
and  settled  conviction,  one  way  or  the  other,  on  the 
subject.  Such  persons,  of  course,  have  little  to  do 
with  this  book.  If  the  Word  of  God  is  indeed  there, 
it  cannot  reach  them. 

With  such  mental  conditions  so  widely  prevailing, 
some  words  regarding  the  origin,  authority,  purpose, 


INTRODUCTORY. 


and  use  of  this  book  of  Leviticus  seem  to  be  a  necessary 
preliminary  to  its  profitable  exposition. 

The  Origin  and  Authority  of  Leviticus. 

As  to  the  origin  and  authority  of  this  book,  the  first 
verse  presents  a  very  formal  and  explicit  statement : 
"  The  Lord  called  unto  Moses,  and  spake  unto  him." 
These  words  evidently  contain  by  necessary  implication 
two  affirmations  :  first,  that  the  legislation  which  imme- 
diately follows  is  of  Mosaic  origin:  ^^The  Lord  spake 
unto  Moses;"  and,  secondly,  that  it  was  not  the  pro- 
duct merely  of  the  mind  of  Moses,  but  came  to  him, 
in  the  first  instance,  as  a  revelation  from  Jehovah  : 
^^ Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses."  And  although  it  is 
quite  true  that  the  words  in  this  first  verse  strictly 
refer  only  to  that  section  of  the  book  which  immediately 
follows,  yet,  inasmuch  as  the  same  or  a  like  formula 
is  used  repeatedly  before  successive  sections, — in  all, 
no  less  than  fifty-six  times  in  the  twenty-seven  chapters, 
— these  words  may  with  perfect  fairness  be  regarded 
as  expressing  a  claim  respecting  these  two  points, 
which  covers  the  entire  book. 

We  must  not,  indeed,  put  more  into  these  words  than 
is  truly  there.  They  simply  and  only  declare  the 
Mosaic  origin  and  the  inspired  authority  of  the  legis- 
lation which  the  book  contains.  They  say  nothing  as 
to  whether  or  not  Moses  wrote  every  word  of  this  book 
himself;  or  whether  the  Spirit  of  God  directed  and 
inspired  other  persons,  in  Moses'  time  or  afterward, 
to  commit  this  Mosaic  law  to  writing.  They  give  us 
no  hint  as  to  when  the  various  sections  which  make 
up  the  book  were  combined  into  their  present  literary 
form,  whether  by  Moses  himself,  as  is  the  traditional 
view,  or  by  men  of  God  in  a  later  day.     As  to  these 


THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


and  other  matters  of  secondary  importance  which  might 
be  named,  the  book  records  no  statement.  The  words 
used  in  the  text,  and  similar  expressions  used  else- 
where, simply  and  only  declare  the  legislation  to  be  of 
Mosaic  origin  and  of  inspired  authority.  Only,  be  it 
observed,  so  much  as  this  they  do  affirm  in  the  most 
direct  and  uncompromising  manner. 

It  is  of  great  importance  to  note  all  this :  for  in  the 
heat  of  theological  discussion  the  issue  is  too  often 
misapprehended  on  both  sides.  The  real  question, 
and,  as  every  one  knows,  the  burning  Biblical  question 
of  the  day,  is  precisely  this,  whether  the  claim  this 
book  contains,  thus  exactly  defined,  is  true  or  false. 

A  certain  school  of  critics,  comprising  many  of  the 
greatest  learning,  and  of  undoubted  honesty  of  inten- 
tion, assures  the  Church  and  the  world  that  a  strictly 
scientific  criticism  compels  one  to  the  conclusion  that 
this  claim,  even  as  thus  sharply  limited  and  defined, 
is,  to  use  plain  words,  not  true ;  that  an  enlightened 
scholarship  must  acknowledge  that  Moses  had  little 
or  nothing  to  do  with  what  we  find  in  this  book ;  that, 
in  fact,  it  did  not  originate  till  nearly  a  thousand  years 
later,  when,  after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  certain 
Jewish  priests,  desirous  of  magnifying  their  authority 
with  the  people,  fell  on  the  happy  expedient  of  writing 
this  book  of  Leviticus,  together  with  certain  other  parts 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  then,  to  give  the  work  a  prestige 
and  authority  which  on  its  own  merits  or  over  their 
own  names  it  could  not  have  had,  delivered  it  to  their 
countrymen  as  nearly  a  thousand  years  old,  the  work 
of  their  great  lawgiver.  And,  strangest  of  all,  they  not 
only  did  this,  but  were  so  successful  in  imposing  this 
forgery  upon  the  whole  nation  that  history  records  not 
even  an  expressed  suspicion  of  a  single  person,  until 


INTRODUCTORY, 


modern  times,  of  its  non-Mosaic  origin ;  that  is,  they 
succeeded  in  persuading  the  whole  people  of  Israel  that 
a  law  which  they  had  themselves  just  promulgated  had 
been  in  existence  among  them  for  nearly  ten  centuries, 
the  very  work  of  Moses,  when,  in  reality,  it  was  quite 
a  new  thing. 

Astonishing  and  even  incredible  as  all  this  may  seem 
to  the  uninitiated,  substantially  this  theory  is  held  by 
many  of  the  Biblical  scholars  of  our  day  as  presenting 
the  essential  facts  of  the  case ;  and  the  discovery  of 
these  supposed  facts  we  are  called  upon  to  admire  as 
one  of  the  chief  literary  triumphs  of  modern  critical 
scholarship ! 

Now  the  average  Christian,  whether  minister  or  lay- 
man, though  intelligent  enough  in  ordinary  matters  of 
human  knowledge,  or  even  a  well-educated  man,  is  not, 
and  cannot  be,  a  specialist  in  Hebrew  and  in  the  higher 
criticism.  What  is  he  then  to  do  when  such  a  theory 
is  presented  to  him  as  endorsed  by  scholars  of  the 
highest  ability  and  the  most  extensive  learning  ?  Must 
we,  then,  all  learn  Hebrew  and  study  this  higher 
criticism  before  we  can  be  permitted  to  have  any  well- 
justified  and  decided  opinion  whether  this  book,  this 
law  of  Leviticus,  be  the  Word  of  God  or  a  forgery  ? 
We  think  not.  There  are  certain  considerations,  quite 
level  to  the  understanding  of  every  one ;  certain  facts, 
which  are  accepted  as  such  by  the  most  eminent 
scholars,  which  ought  to  be  quite  sufficient  for  the 
maintenance  and  the  abundant  confirmation  of  our 
faith  in  this  book  of  Leviticus  as  the  very  Word  of 
God  to  Moses. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  if  any 
theory  which  denies  the  Mosaic  origin  and  the  inspired 
authority  of  this  book  be  true,  then  the  fifty-six  asser- 


THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


tions  of  such  origin  and  authority  which  the  book 
contains  are  unqualifiedly  false.  Further,  however 
any  may  seek  to  disguise  the  issue  with  words,  if  in 
fact  this  Levitical  ritual  and  code  of  laws  came  into 
existence  only  after  the  Babylonian  captivity  and  in 
the  way  suggested,  then  the  book  of  Leviticus  can  by 
no  possibility  be  the  Word  of  God  in  any  sense,  but  is 
a  forgery  and  a  fraud.  Surely  this  needs  no  demon- 
stration. *'The  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,"  reads,  for 
instance,  this  first  verse;  ''The  Lord  did  not  speak 
these  things  unto  Moses,"  answer  these  critics;  "they 
were  invented  by  certain  unscrupulous  priests  centuries 
afterwards."     Such  is  the  unavoidable  issue. 

Now  who  shall  arbitrate  in  these  matters  ?  who 
shall  settle  these  questions  for  the  great  multitude  of 
believers  who  know  nothing  of  Hebrew  criticism,  and 
who,  although  they  may  not  well  understand  much  that 
is  in  this  book,  have  yet  hitherto  accepted  it  with 
reverent  faith  as  being  what  it  professes  to  be,  the 
very  Word  of  God  through  Moses  ?  To  whom,  indeed, 
can  we  refer  such  a  question  as  this  for  decision  but 
to  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  our  Lord  and  Saviour, 
confessed  of  all  believers  to  be  in  verity  the  only- 
begotten  Son  of  God  from  the  bosom  of  the  Father  ? 
For  He  declared  that  "  the  Father  showed  unto  Him," 
the  Son,  "  all  things  that  He  Himself  did  ; "  He  will 
therefore  be  sure  to  know  the  truth  of  this  matter, 
sure  to  know  the  Word  of  His  Father  from  the  word 
of  man,  if  He  will  but  speak. 

And  He  has  spoken  on  this  matter.  He,  the  Son  of 
God.  What  was  the  common  belief  of  the  Jews  in  the 
time  of  our  Lord  as  to  the  Mosaic  origin  and  Divine 
authority  of  this  book,  as  of  all  the  Pentateuch,  every 
one  knows.     Not  a  living  man  disputes  the  statement 


INTRODUCTORY. 


made  by  a  recent  writer  on  this  subject,  that  ^'  previous 
to  the  Christian  era,  there  are  no  traces  of  a  second 
opinion  "  on  this  question ;  the  book  ^' was  universally 
ascribed  to  Moses."  Now,  that  Jesus  Christ  shared 
and  repeatedly  endorsed  this  belief  of  His  contem- 
poraries should  be  perfectly  clear  to  any  ordinary 
reader  of  the  Gospels. 

The  facts  as  to  His  testimony,  in  brief,  are  these. 
As  to  the  Pentateuch  in  general,  He  called  it  (Luke 
xxiv.  44)  "  the  law  of  Moses ; "  and,  as  regards  its 
authority,  He  declared  it  to  be  such  that  "  till  heaven 
and  earth  pass  away,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no 
wise  pass  away  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled'' 
(Matt.  v.  18).  Could  this  be  truly  said  of  this  book 
of  Leviticus,  which  is  undoubtedly  included  in  this 
term,  '*  the  law,"  if  it  were  not  the  Word  of  God,  but 
a  forgery,  so  that  its  fifty-six  affirmations  of  its  Mosaic 
origin  and  inspired  authority  were  false  ?  Again, 
Christ  declared  that  Moses  in  his  ^'  writings "  wrote 
of  Him, — a  statement,  which,  it  should  be  observed, 
imputes  to  Moses  foreknowledge,  and  therefore  super- 
natural inspiration ;  and  further  said  that  faith  in 
Himself  was  so  connected  with  faith  in  Moses,  that  if 
the  Jews  had  believed  Moses,  they  would  have  also 
beheved  Him  (John  v.  46,  47).  Is  it  conceivable 
that  Christ  should  have  spoken  thus,  if  the  '^  writings  " 
referred  to  had  been  forgeries  ? 

But  not  only  did  our  Lord  thus  endorse  the  Pentateuch 
in  general,  but  also,  on  several  occasions,  the  Mosaic 
origin  and  inspired  authority  of  Leviticus  in  particular. 
Thus,  when  He  healed  the  lepers  (Matt.  viii.  4)  He 
sent  them  to  the  priests  on  the  ground  that  Moses  had 
commanded  this  in  such  cases.  But  such  a  command  is 
found  only  in  this  book  of  Leviticus  (xiv.  3-10).    Again, 


lo  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

in  justifying  His  disciples  for  plucking  the  ears  of  corn 
on  the  Sabbath  day,  He  adduces  the  example  of  David, 
who  ate  the  shew-bread  when  he  was  an  hungered, 
**  which  was  not  lawful  for  him  to  eat,  but  only  for  the 
priests  "  (Matt.  xii.  4) ;  thus  referring  to  a  law  which 
is  only  fou^d  in  Leviticus  (xxiv.  9).  But  the  cita- 
tion was  only  pertinent  on  the  assumption  that  He 
regarded  the  prohibition  of  the  shew-bread  as  having 
the  same  inspired  authority  as  the  obligation  of  the 
Sabbath.  In  John  vii.  32,  again,  He  refers  to  Moses 
as  having  renevved  the  ordinance  of  circumcision,  which 
at  the  first  had  been  given  to  Abraham ;  and,  as  usual, 
assumes  the  Divine  authority  of  the  command  as  thus 
given.  But  this  renewal  of  the  ordinance  of  circum- 
cision is  recorded  only  in  Leviticus  (xii.  3).  Yet 
once  more,  rebuking  the  Pharisees  for  their  ingenious 
justification  of  the  hard-hearted  neglect  of  parents  by 
undutiful  children.  He  reminds  them  that  Moses  had 
said  that  he  who  cursed  father  or  mother  should  be  put 
to  death ;  a  law  which  is  only  found  in  the  so-called 
priest-oode,  Exod.  xxi.  17  and  Lev.  xx.  9.  Further,  He 
is  so  far  from  merely  assuming  the  truth  of  the  Jewish 
opinion  for  the  sake  of  an  argument,  that  He  formally 
declares  this  law,  equally  with  the  fifth  commandment, 
to  be  "  a  commandment  of  God,"  which  they  by  their 
tradition  had  made  void  (Matt.  xiv.  3-6). 

One  would  suppose  that  it  had  been  impossible  to 
avoid  the  inference  from  all  this,  that  our  Lord  believed, 
and  intended  to  be  understood  as  teaching,  that  the  law 
of  Leviticus  was,  in  a  true  sense,  of  Mosaic  origin,  and 
of  inspired,  and  therefore  infallible,  authority. 

We  are  in  no  way  concerned,  indeed, — nor  is  it 
essential  to  the  argument, — to  press  this  testimony  of 
Christ  as  proving  more  than  the  very  least  which  the 


INTRODUCTORY.  n 


words  fairly  imply.  For  instance,  nothing  in  His  words, 
as  we  read  them,  any  more  than  in  the  language  of 
Leviticus  itself,  excludes  the  supposition  that  in  the 
preparation  of  the  law,  Moses,  like  the  Apostle  Paul, 
may  have  had  co-labourers  or  amanuenses,  such  as 
Aaron,  Eleazar,  Joshua,  or  others,  whose  several  parts 
of  the  work  might  then  have  been  issued  under  his 
endorsement  and  authority ;  so  that  Christ's  testimony 
is  in  no  wise  irreconcilable  with  the  fact  of  differences 
of  style,  or  with  the  evidence  of  different  documents, 
if  any  think  that  they  discover  this,  in  the  book.^ 

We  are  willing  to  go  further,  and  add  that  in  the 
testimony  of  our  Lord  we  find  nothing  which  declares 
against  the  possibility  of  one  or  more  redactions  or 
revisions  of  the  laws  of  Leviticus  in  post-Mosaic  times, 
by  one  or  more  inspired  men  ;  as,  e.g.,  by  Ezra,  de- 
scribed (Ezra  vii.  6)  as  ''a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  which  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel,  had  given ; " 
to  whom  also  ancient  Jewish  tradition  attributes  the 
final  settlement  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  down  to  his 
time.  Hence  no  words  of  Christ  touch  the  question  as 
to  when  the  book  of  Leviticus  received  its  present  form, 
in  respect  of  the  order  of  its  chapters,  sections,  and 
verses.  This  is  a  matter  of  quite  secondary  importance, 
and  may  be  settled  any  way  without  prejudice  to  the 
Mosaic  origin  and  authority  of  the  laws  it  contains. 

Neither,  in  the  last  place,  do  the  words  of  our  Lord, 
carefully  weighed,  of  necessity  exclude  even  the  pos- 
sibility that  such  persons,  acting  under  Divine  direction 


*  "  Genesis  may  be  made  up  of  various  documents,  and  yet  have 
been  compiled  by  Moses ;  and  the  same  thing  is  possible,  even  in  the 
later  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  If  these  could  be  successfully  par- 
titioned among  different  writers,  on  the  score  of  variety  in  literary 
execution,  why  may  not  these  have  been  engaged  jointly  with  Moses 


12  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


and  inspiration,  may  have  first  reduced  some  parts  of 
the  law  given  by  Moses  to  writing ;  ^  or  even,  as  an 
extreme  supposition,  may  have  entered  here  and  there, 
under  the  unerring  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  pre- 
scriptions which,  although  new  as  to  the  letter,  were 
none  the  less  truly  Mosaic,  in  that  by  necessary  impli- 
cation they  were  logically  involved  in  the  original 
code.^ 

We  do  not  indeed  here  argue  either  for  or  against 
any  of  these  suppositions,  which  were  apart  from  the 
scope  of  the  present  work.  We  are  only  concerned 
here  to  rem.ark  that  Christ   has  not    incontrovertibly 


himself  in  preparing  each  his  appointed  portion,  and  the  whole  have 
been  finally  reduced  by  Moses  to  its  present  form  ?  .  .  .  Why  might 
not  these  continue  their  work,  and  record  what  occurred  after  Moses 
was  taken  away  ?  " — Professor  W.  H.  Green,  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclo- 
pcedia ;  article,  "'The  Pentateuch." 

'  "  If  it  be  proven  that  a  record  was  committed  to  writing  at  a  com- 
paratively late  date,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  the  essential 
part  has  not  been  accurately  handed  down," — Professor  Strack,  ibid. 

^  Something  like  this  seems  to  have  been  the  final  position  of  the 
late  Professor  Delitzsch,  who  said  :  "  We  hold  firmly  that  Moses  laid 
the  foundation  of  this  codification  "  (of  the  "  priest-code  "  of  Leviticus, 
etc.),  "  but  it  was  continued  in  the  post-Mosaic  period  within  the 
priesthood,  to  whom  was  entrusted  the  transmission,  interpretation,  and 
administration  of  the  law.  We  admit  this  willingly ;  and  even  the 
participation  of  Ezra  in  this  codification  in  itself  furnishes  no  stum- 
bling block  for  us.  For  it  is  not  inconceivable  that  laws  which  until 
then  had  been  handed  down  orally  were  fixed  by  him  in  writing  to 
secure  their  judicial  authority  and  execution.  The  most  important 
thing  for  us  is  the  historico-traditional  character  of  the  Pentateuchal 
legislation,  and  especially  the  occasions  for  (the  laws)  and  the  funda- 
mental arrangements  in  the  history  of  the  times.  That  which  we 
cannot  be  persuaded  to  admit  is  that  the  so-called  Priestly  Code  is 
the  work  of  the  free  invention  of  the  latest  date,  which  takes  on  the 
artificial  appearance  of  ancient  history." — The  Presbyterian  Review, 
July  1882;  article,  "Delitzsch  on  the  Origin  and  Composition  of  the 
Pentateuch,"  p.  578. 


INTRODUCTORY.  13 


settled  these  questions.  These  things  may  be  true  or 
not  true ;  the  decision  of  such  matters  properly  belongs 
to  the  literary  critics.  But  decide  them  as  one  will,  it 
will  still  remain  true  that  the  law  is  ^^the  law  of 
Moses,"  given  by  revelation  from  God. 

So  much  as  this,  however,  is  certain.  Whatsoever 
modifications  may  conceivably  have  passed  upon  the 
text,  all  work  of  this  kind  was  done,  as  all  agree,  long 
before  the  time  of  our  Lord ;  and  the  text  to  which  He 
refers  as  of  Mosaic  origin  and  of  inspired  authority, 
was  therefore  essentially  the  text  of  Leviticus  as  we 
have  it  to-day.  We  are  thus  compelled  to  insist  that 
whatever  modifications  may  have  been  made  in  the 
original  Levitical  law,  they  cannot  have  been,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  our  Lord,  such  as  in  any  way 
conflicted  with  His  affirmation  of  its  Mosaic  origin  and 
its  inspired  authority.  They  can  thus,  at  the  very 
utmost,  only  have  been,  as  suggested,  in  the  way  of 
legitimate  logical  development  and  application  to  suc- 
cessive circumstances,  of  the  Levitical  law  as  originally 
given  to  Moses ;  and  that,  too,  under  the  administration 
of  a  priesthood  endowed  with  the  possession  of  the 
Urim  and  Thummim,  so  as  to  give  such  official  de- 
liverances, whenever  required,  the  sanction  of  inerrant 
Divine  authority,  binding  on  the  conscience  as  from 
God.  Here,  at  least,  surely,  Christ  by  His  testimony 
has  placed  an  immovable  limitation  upon  the  specula- 
tions of  the  critics. 

And  yet  there  are  those  who  admit  the  facts  as  to 
Christ's  testimony,  and  nevertheless  claim  that  without 
any  prejudice  to  the  absolute  truthfulness  of  our  Lord, 
we  may  suppose  that  in  speaking  as  He  did,  with 
regard  to  the  law  of  Leviticus,  He  merely  conformed 
to  the  common  usage  of  the  Jews,  without  intending 


14  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

thereby  to  endorse  their  opinion ;  any  more  than,  when, 
conforming  to  the  ordinary  mode  of  speech,  He  spoke 
of  the  sun  as  rising  and  setting.  He  meant  thereby  to 
be  understood  as  endorsing  the  common  opinion  of 
men  of  that  time  that  the  sun  actually  passed  round 
the  earth  every  twenty-four  hours.  To  which  it  is 
enough  to  reply  that  this  illustration,  which  has  so 
often  been  used  in  this  argument,  is  not  relevant  to 
the  case  before  us.  For  not  only  did  our  Lord  use 
language  which  implied  the  truth  of  the  Jewish  belief 
regarding  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Mosaic  law, 
but  He  formally  teaches  it ;  and — what  is  of  still  more 
moment — He  rests  the  obligation  of  certain  duties  upon 
the  fact  that  this  law  of  Leviticus  was  a  revelation 
from  God  to  Moses  for  the  children  of  Israel.  But  if 
the  supposed  facts,  upon  which  He  bases  His  argument 
in  such  cases,  are,  in  reality,  not  facts,  then  His  argu- 
ment becomes  null  and  void.  How,  for  instance,  is  it 
possible  to  explain  away  the  words  in  which  He  appeals 
to  one  of  the  laws  of  Exodus  and  Leviticus  (Matt.  xv. 
3-6)  as  being  not  a  Jewish  opinion,  but,  instead,  in 
explicit  contrast  with  the  traditions  of  the  Rabbis,  '*  a 
commandment  of  God  "  ?  Was  this  expression  merely 
^'  an  accommodation "  to  the  mistaken  notions  of  the 
Jews  ?     If  so,  then  what  becomes  of  His  argument  ? 

Others,  again,  feeling  the  force  of  this,  and  yet 
sincerely  and  earnestly  desiring  to  maintain  above 
possible  impeachment  the  perfect  truthfulness  of  Christ, 
still  assuming  that  the  Jews  were  mistaken,  and  ad- 
mitting that,  if  so,  our  Lord  must  have  shared  their 
error,  take  another  line  of  argument.  They  remind  us 
of  what,  however  mysterious,  cannot  be  denied,  that  our 
Lord,  in  virtue  of  His  incarnation,  came  under  certain 
limitations  in  knowledge ;  and  then  urge  that  without 


INTRODUCTORY.  15 


any  prejudice  to  His  character  we  may  suppose  that,  not 
only  with  regard  to  the  time  of  His  advent  and  kingdom 
(Matt.  xxiv.  36),  but  also  with  respect  to  the  author- 
ship and  the  Divine  authority  of  this  book  of  Leviticus, 
He  may  have  shared  in  the  ignorance  and  error  of  His 
countrymen. 

But,  surely,  the  fact  of  Christ's  limitation  in  know- 
ledge cannot  be  pressed  so  far  as  the  argument  of  such 
requires,  without  by  logical  necessity  nullifying  Christ's 
mission  and  authority  as  a  religious  teacher.  For  it 
is  certain  that  according  to  His  own  word,  and  the 
universal  belief  of  Christians,  the  supreme  object  of 
Christ's  mission  was  to  reveal  unto  men  through  His 
life  and  teachings,  and  especially  through  His  death 
upon  the  cross,  the  Father ;  and  it  is  certain  that  He 
claimed  to  have,  in  order  to  this  end,  perfect  knowledge 
of  the  Father.  But  how  could  this  most  essential 
claim  of  His  be  justified,  and  how  could  He  be  com- 
petent to  give  unto  men  a  perfect  and  inerrant  know- 
ledge of  the  Father,  if  the  ignorance  of  His  humiliation 
was  so  great  that  He  was  unable  to  distinguish  from 
His  Father's  Word  a  book  which,  by  the  hypothesis, 
was  not  the  Word  of  the  Father,  but  an  ingenious 
and  successful  forgery  of  certain  crafty  post-exilian 
priests  ? 

It  is  thus  certain  that  Jesus  must  have  known 
whether  the  Pentateuch,  and,  in  particular,  this  book 
of  Leviticus,  was  the  Word  of  God  or  not ;  certain  also 
that,  if  the  Word  of  God,  it  could  not  have  been  a 
forgery ;  and  equally  certain  that  Jesus  could  not  have 
intended  in  what  He  said  on  this  subject  to  accommo- 
date His  speech  to  a  common  error  of  the  people,  with- 
out thereby  endorsing  their  belief.  It  thus  follows  that 
critics  of  the  radical  school  referred  to  are  directly  at 


1 6  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

issue  with  the  testimony  of  Christ  regarding  this  book. 
It  is  of  immense  consequence  that  Christians  should 
see  this  issue  clearly.  While  Jesus  taught  in  various 
ways  that  Leviticus  contains  a  law  given  by  revelation 
from  God  to  Moses,  these  teach  that  it  is  a  priestly 
forgery  of  the  days  after  Ezra.  Both  cannot  be  right ; 
and  if  the  latter  are  in  the  right,  then — we  speak  with 
all  possible  deliberation  and  reverence — Jesus  Christ 
was  mistaken,  and  was  therefore  unable  even  to  tell  us 
with  inerrant  certainty  whether  this  or  that  is  the  Word 
of  God  or  not.  But  if  this  is  so,  then  how  can  we 
escape  the  final  inference  that  His  claim  to  have  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  Father  must  have  been  an  error ;  His 
claim  to  be  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  therefore,  a  false 
pretension,  and  Christianity,  a  delusion,  so  that  mankind 
has  in  Him  no  Saviour  ? 

But  against  so  fatal  a  conclusion  stands  the  great 
established  fact  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
the  dead ;  whereby  He  was  with  power  declared  to  be 
the  Son  of  God,  so  that  we  may  know  that  His  word 
on  this,  as  on  all  subjects  where  He  has  spoken,  settles 
controversy,  and  is  a  sufficient  ground  of  faith;  while 
it  imposes  upon  all  speculations  of  men,  literary  or 
philosophical,  eternal  and  irremovable  limitations. 

Let  no  one  think  that  the  case,  as  regards  the  issue 
at  stake,  has  been  above  stated  too  strongly.  One 
could  not  well  go  beyond  the  often  cited  words  of 
Kuenen  on  this  subject :  '*  We  must  either  cast  aside 
as  worthless  our  dearly  bought  scientific  method,  or  we 
must  for  ever  cease  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the 
New  Testament  in  the  domain  of  the  exegesis  of  the 
Old."  With  good  reason  does  another  scholar  exclaim 
at  these  words,  "  The  Master  must  not  be  heard  as  a 
witness!     We  treat  our  criminals  with  more  respect." 


INTRODUCTORY.  17 


So  then  stands  the  question  this  day  which  this  first 
verse  of  Leviticus  brings  before  us :  In  which  have  we 
more  confidence  ?  in  Hterary  critics,  like  a  Kuenen  or 
Wellhausen,  or  in  Jesus  Christ  ?  Which  is  the  more 
Hkely  to  know  with  certainty  whether  the  law  of 
Leviticus  is  a  revelation  from  God  or  not  ? 

The  devout  Christian,  who  through  the  grace  of  the 
crucified  and  risen  Lord  "  of  whom  Moses,  in  the  law, 
and  the  prophets  did  write,"  and  who  has  "  tasted  the 
good  word  of  God,"  will  not  long  hesitate  for  an  answer. 
He  will  not  indeed,  if  wise,  timidly  or  fanatically  decry 
all  literary  investigation  of  the  Scriptures ;  but  he  will 
insist  that  the  critic  shall  ever  hold  his  reason  in 
reverent  subjection  to  the  Lord  Jesus  on  all  points 
where  the  Lord  has  spoken.  Such  everywhere  will 
heartily  endorse  and  rejoice  in  those  admirable  words 
of  the  late  venerable  Professor  Delitzsch ;  words 
which  stand  almost  as  of  his  last  solemn  testament : — 
''The  theology  of  glory  which  prides  itself  upon 
being  its  own  highest  authority,  bewitches  even  those 
who  had  seemed  proof  against  its  enchantments ;  and 
the  theology  of  the  Cross,  which  holds  Divine  folly 
to  be  wiser  than  men,  is  regarded  as  an  unscientific 
lagging  behind  the  steps  of  progress.  .  .  .  But  the 
faith  which  I  professed  in  my  first  sermons,  .  .  . 
remains  mine  to-day,  undiminished  in  strength,  and 
immeasurably  higher  than  all  earthly  knowledge.  Even 
if  in  many  Biblical  questions  I  have  to  oppose  the 
traditional  opinion,  certainly  my  opposition  rests  on 
this  side  of  the  gulf,  on  the  side  of  the  theology  of  the 
Cross,  of  grace,  of  miracles  !  ...  By  this  banner  let 
us   stand  ;  folding   ourselves  in  it,  let  us  die  ! "  ^     To 

'  The  Expositor,  January,  1889;  article,  "The  Old  Theology  and  the 
New,"  pp.  54,  55. 

2 


i8  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

which  truly  noble  words  every  true  Christian  may  well 
say,  Amen  ! 

We  then  stand  without  fear  with  Jesus  Christ  in 
our  view  of  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  book  of 
Leviticus. 

The  Occasion  and  Order  of  Leviticus. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  exposition  of  this  book,  a 
few  words  need  to  be  said  regarding  its  occasion  and 
plan,  and  its  object  and  present  use. 

The  opening  words  of  the  book,  ^'  And  the  Lord 
said,"  connect  it  in  the  closest  manner  with  the  preced- 
ing book  of  Exodus,  at  the  contents  of  which  we  have 
therefore  to  glance  for  a  moment.  The  kingdom  of 
God,  rejected  by  corporate  humanity  in  the  founding  of 
the  Babylonian  world-power,  but  continuing  on  earth 
in  a  few  still  loyal  souls  in  the  line  of  Abraham  and  his 
seed,  at  last,  according  to  promise,  had  been  formally 
and  visibly  re-established  on  earth  at  Mount  Sinai. 
The  fundamental  law  of  the  kingdom  contained  in  the 
ten  commandments  and  certain  applications  of  the 
same,  had  been  delivered  in  what  is  called  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant,  amid  thunders  and  lightnings,  at  the  holy 
mount.  Israel  had  solemnly  entered  into  covenant 
with  God  on  this  basis,  saying,  "All  these  things  will 
we  do  and  be  obedient,"  and  the  covenant  had  been 
sealed  by  the  solemn  sprinkling  of  blood. 

This  being  done,  Jehovah  now  issued  commandment 
for  the  building  of  the  tabernacle  or  "  tent  of  meeting," 
where  He  might  manifest  His  glory  and  from  time  to 
time  communicate  His  will  to  Israel.  As  mediators  be- 
tween Him  and  the  people,  the  priesthood  was  appointed, 
their  vestments  and  duties  prescribed.  All  this  having 
been  done  as  ordered,  the  tent  of  meeting  covering  the 


INTRODUCTORY.  19 


interior  tabernacle  was  set  up ;  the  Shekinah  cloud 
covered  it,  and  the  glory  of  Jehovah  filled  the  tabernacle, 
— the  manifested  presence  of  the  King  of  Israel ! 

Out  of  the  tent  of  meeting,  from  this  excellent  glory, 
Jehovah  now  called  unto  Moses,  and  delivered  the  law 
as  we  have  it  in  the  first  seven  chapters  of  the  book 
of  Leviticus.  To  the  law  of  offerings  succeeds  (viii.-x.) 
an  account  of  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons 
to  the  priestly  office,  and  their  formal  public  assump- 
tion of  their  functions,  with  an  account  of  the  very 
awful  sanction  which  was  given  to  the  preceding  law, 
by  the  death  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  before  the  Lord,  for 
offering  as  He  had  not  commanded  them. 

The  next  section  of  the  book  contains  the  law  con- 
cerning the  clean  and  the  unclean,  under  the  several 
heads  of  food  (xi.),  birth-defilement  (xii.),  leprosy 
(xiii.,  xiv.),  and  unclean  issues  (xv.) ;  and  closes  (xvi.) 
with  the  ordinance  of  the  great  day  of  atonement,  in 
which  the  high  priest  alone,  presenting  the  blood  of  a 
sin-offering  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  was  to  make  atone- 
ment once  a  year  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  nation.^ 

The  third  section  of  the  book  contains  the  law  of 
holiness,^  first,  for  the  people  (xvii.-xx.),  and  then  the 
special  laws  for  the  priests  (xxi.,  xxii.).  These  are 
followed,  first  (xxiii.),  by  the  order  for  the  feasts  of  the 
Lord,  or  appointed  times  of  public  holy  convocation ; 
then  (xxiv.),  by  a  historical  incident  designed  to  show 
that  the  law,  as  given,  must,  in  several  respects  noted, 


'  From  the  note  in  xvi.  i  it  would  appear  that  this  chapter,  so 
different  in  subject  from  the  five  preceding  chapters  on  "  Unclean- 
nesses,"  originally  preceded  them,  and  so  followed  x,,  with  which  it 
is  so  closely  connected.  Its  exposition  is  therefore  given  immediately 
after  that  of  x. 

'^  This  name  is  often  restricted  to  xviii.-xx. 


20  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

be  applied  in  all  its  strictness  no  less  to  the  alien  than 
to  the  native-born  Israelite ;  and  finally  (xxv.),  by  the 
remarkable  ordinances  concerning  the  sabbatic  year, 
and  the  culmination  of  the  sabbatic  system  of  the  law 
in  the  year  of  jubilee. 

As  a  conclusion  to  the  whole,  the  legislation  thus 
given  is  now  sealed  (xxvi.)  with  promises  from  God  of 
blessing  to  the  nation  if  they  will  keep  this  law,  and 
threats  of  unsparing  vengeance  against  the  people  and 
the  land,  if  they  forsake  His  commandments  and  break 
the  covenant,  though  still  with  a  promise  of  mercy  when, 
having  thus  transgressed,  they  shall  at  any  time  repent. 
The  book  then  closes  with  a  supplemental  chapter  on 
voluntary  vows  and  dues  (xxvii.). 

The  Purpose  of  Leviticus. 

What  now  was  the  purpose  of  Leviticus  ?  In 
general,  as  regards  Israel,  it  was  given  to  direct  them 
how  they  might  live  as  a  holy  nation  in  fellowship  with 
God.  The  key-note  of  the  book  is  '*  Holiness  to 
Jehovah."  More  particularly,  the  object  of  the  book 
was  to  furnish  for  the  theocracy  set  up  in  Israel  a  code 
of  law  which  should  secure  their  physical,  moral,  and 
spiritual  well-being.  But  the  establishment  of  the 
theocracy  in  Israel  was  itself  only  a  means  to  an  end  ; 
namely,  to  make  Israel  a  blessing  to  all  nations,  in 
mediating  to  the  Gentiles  the  redemption  of  God. 
Hence,  the  Levitical  laws  were  all  intended  and  adapted 
to  train  and  prepare  the  nation  for  this  special  historic 
mission  to  which  God  had  chosen  them. 

To  this  end,  it  was  absolutely  necessary,  first  of  all, 
that  Israel  should  be  kept  separate  from  the  heathen 
nations.     To  effect  and  maintain  this  separation,  these 


INTRODUCTORY.  21 


laws  of  Leviticus  were  admirably  adapted.  They  are 
of  such  a  character,  that  obedience  to  them,  even  in 
a  very  imperfect  way,  has  made  the  nation  to  this  day 
to  be,  in  a  manner  and  degree  perfectly  unique,  isolated 
and  separate  from  all  the  peoples  in  the  midst  of  whom 
they  dwell. 

The  law  of  Leviticus  was  intended  to  effect  this 
preparation  of  Israel  for  its  world-mission,  not  only 
in  an  external  manner,  but  also  in  an  internal  way; 
namely,  by  revealing  in  and  to  Israel  the  real  character 
of  God,  and  in  particular  His  unapproachable  holiness. 
For  if  Israel  is  to  teach  the  nations  the  way  of  holiness, 
in  which  alone  they  can  be  blessed,  the  chosen  nation 
must  itself  first  be  taught  holiness  by  the  Holy  One. 
A  lesson  here  for  every  one  of  us  !  The  revelation  of 
the  holiness  of  God  was  made,  first  of  all,  in  the  sacri- 
ficial system.  The  great  lesson  which  it  must  have 
kept  before  the  most  obtuse  conscience  was  this,  that 
'^  without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of 
sin ; "  that  God  therefore  must  be  the  Most  Holy,  and 
sin  against  Him  no  trifle.  It  was  made,  again,  in  the 
precepts  of  the  law.  If  in  some  instances  these  seem 
to  tolerate  evils  which  we  should  have  expected  that 
a  holy  God  would  at  once  have  swept  away,  this  is 
explained  by  our  Lord  (Matt.  xix.  8)  by  the  fact  that 
some  things  were  of  necessity  ordained  in  view  of  the 
hardness  of  men's  hearts ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  certainly  quite  plain  that  the  laws  of  Leviticus 
constantly  held  before  the  Israelite  the  absolute  holiness 
of  God  as  the  only  standard  of  perfection. 

The  holiness  of  God  was  further  revealed  by  the 
severity  of  the  penalties  which  were  attached  to  these 
Levitical  laws.  Men  often  call  these  harsh,  forgetting 
that  we  are  certain  to  underestimate  the  criminality  of 


22  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

sin  ;  forgetting  that  God  must,  in  any  case,  have  rights 
over  human  Hfe  which  no  earthly  ruler  can  have.  But 
no  one  will  deny  that  this  very  severity  of  the  law  was 
fitted  to  impress  the  Israehte,  as  nothing  else  could, 
with  God's  absolute  intolerance  of  sin  and  impurity, 
and  make  him  feel  that  he  could  not  trifle  with  God, 
and  hope  to  sin  with  impunity. 

And  yet  we  must  not  forget  that  the  law  was  adapted 
no  less  to  reveal  the  other  side  of  the  Divine  holiness  ; 
that  ^^the  Lord  God  is  merciful  and  gracious,  and  of 
great  kindness."  For  if  the  law  of  Leviticus  proclaims 
that  "without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission," 
with  equal  clearness  it  proclaims  that  with  shedding  of 
blood  there  can  be  remission  of  sin  to  every  believing 
penitent. 

And  this  leads  to  the  observation  that  this  law  was 
further  adapted  to  the  training  of  Israel  for  its  world- 
mission,  in  that  to  every  thoughtful  man  it  must  have 
suggested  a  secret  of  redeeming  mercy  yet  to  be  revealed. 
Every  such  one  must  have  often  said  in  his  heart  that 
it  was  "  not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats 
should  take  away  sin ; "  and  that  as  a  substitute  for 
human  life,  when  forfeited  by  sin,  more  precious  blood 
than  this  must  be  required  ;  even  though  he  might  not 
have  been  able  to  imagine  whence  God  should  provide 
such  a  Lamb  for  an  offering.  And  so  it  was  that  the 
law  was  fitted,  in  the  highest  degree,  to  prepare  Israel 
for  the  reception  of  Him  to  whom  all  these  sacrifices 
pointed,  the  High  Priest  greater  than  Aaron,  the  Lamb 
of  God  which  should  "  take  away  the  sins  of  the  world," 
in  whose  person  and  work  Israel's  mission  should  at 
last  receive  its  fullest  realisation. 

But  the  law  of  Leviticus  was  not  only  intended  to 
prepare  Israel   for  the  Messiah  by  thus  awakening  a 


INTRODUCTORY.  23 


sense  of  sin  and  need,  it  was  so  ordered  as  to  be  in 
many  ways  directly  typical  and  prophetic  of  Christ 
and  His  great  redemption,  in  its  future  historical 
development.  Modern  rationalism,  indeed,  denies  this ; 
but  it  is  none  the  less  a  fact.  According  to  the  Apostle 
John  (v.  46),  our  Lord  declared  that  Moses  wrote  of 
Him  ;  and,  according  to  Luke  (xxiv.  27),  when  He 
expounded  unto  the  two  walking  to  Emmaus  "  the 
things  concerning  Himself,"  He  began  His  exposition 
with  "  Moses ; "  and  (ver.  44)  repeated  what  He  had 
before  His  resurrection  taught  them,  that  all  things 
^'  which  were  written  in  the  law^  of  Moses  "  concern- 
ing Him,  must  be  fulfilled.  And  in  full  accord  with 
the  teaching  of  the  Master  taught  also  His  disciples. 
The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  especially, 
argues  from  this  postulate  throughout,  and  also  explicitly 
affirms  the  typical  character  of  the  ordinances  of  this 
book ;  declaring,  for  example,  that  the  Levitical  priests 
in  the  tabernacle  service  served  "  that  which  is  a  copy 
of  the  heavenly  things"  (Heb.  viii.  5);  that  the  blood 
with  which  "  the  copies  of  the  things  in  the  heavens " 
were  cleansed,  prefigured  '*  better  sacrifices  than  these," 
even  the  one  offering  of  Him  who  ''  put  away  sin  by 
the  sacrifice  of  Himself"  (Heb.  ix.  23-6);  and  that 
the  holy  times  and  sabbatic  seasons  of  the  law  were 
''  a  shadow  of  the  things  to  come."  The  fact  is  familiar, 
and  one  need  not  multiply  illustrations.  Many,  no 
doubt,  in  the  interpretation  of  these  types,  have  broken 
loose  from  the  principles  indicated  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  given  free  rein  to  an  unbridled  fancy.  But 
this  only  warns  us  that  we  the  more  carefully  take 
heed  to  follow  the  intimations  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  beware  of  mistaking  our  own  imaginings  for  the 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Such  interpretations  may 


24  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS, 

bring  typology  into  disrepute,  but  they  cannot  nullify 
it  as  a  fact  which  must  be  recognised  in  any  attempt 
to  open  up  the  meaning  of  the  book. 

Neither  is  the  reality  of  this  typical  correspondence 
between  the  Levitical  ritual  and  order  and  New  Testa- 
ment facts  set  aside,  even  though  it  is  admitted  that 
we  cannot'beHeve  that  Israel  generally  could  have  seen 
all  in  it  which  the  New  Testament  declares  to  be  there. 
For  the  very  same  New  Testament  which  declares  the 
typical  correspondence,  no  less  explicitly  tells  us  this 
very  thing :  that  many  things  predicted  and  prefigured 
in  the  Old  Testament,  concerning  the  sufferings  and 
glory  of  Christ,  were  not  understood  by  the  very 
prophets  through  whom  they  were  anciently  made 
known  (i  Peter  i.  10-12).  We  have  then  carefully  to 
distinguish  in  our  interpretation  between  the  immediate 
historical  intention  of  the  Levitical  ordinances,  for  the 
people  of  that  time,  and  their  typical  intention  and 
meaning ;  but  we  are  not  to  imagine  with  some  that 
to  prove  the  one,  is  to  disprove  the  other. 

The  Present-day  Use  of  Leviticus. 

This  very  naturally  brings  us  to  the  answer  to  the 
frequent  question  :  Of  what  use  can  the  book  of 
Leviticus  be  to  believers  now  ?  We  answer,  first,  that 
it  is  to  us,  just  as  much  as  to  ancient  Israel,  a  revela- 
tion of  the  character  of  God.  It  is  even  a  clearer 
revelation  of  God's  character  to  us  than  to  them ;  for 
Christ  has  come  as  the  Fulfiller,  and  thus  the  Inter- 
preter, of  the  law.  And  God  has  not  changed.  He  is 
still  exactly  what  He  was  when  He  called  to  Moses  out 
of  the  tent  of  meeting  or  spoke  to  him  at  Mount  Sinai. 
He  is  just  as  holy  as  then  ;  just  as  intolerant  of  sin  as 
then ;  just  as  merciful  to  the  penitent  sinner  who  pre- 


INTRODUCTORY.  25 

sents  in  faith  the  appointed  blood  of  atonement,  as  He 
was  then. 

More  particularly,  Leviticus  is  of  use  to  us  now,  as 
holding  forth,  in  a  singularly  vivid  manner,  the  fun- 
damental conditions  of  true  religion.  The  Levitical 
priesthood  and  sacrifices  are  no  more,  but  the  spiritual 
truth  they  represented  abides  and  must  abide  for  ever  : 
namely,  that  there  is  for  sinful  man  no  citizenship  in  the 
kingdom  of  God  apart  from  a  High  Priest  and  Mediator 
with  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  sin.  These  are  days 
when  many,  who  would  yet  be  called  Christians,  be- 
little atonement,  and  deny  the  necessity  of  the  shedding 
of  substitutionary  blood  for  our  salvation.  Such  would 
reduce,  if  it  were  possible,  the  whole  sacrificial  ritual 
of  Leviticus  to  a  symbolic  s^^-offering  of  the  worshipper 
to  God.  But  against  this  stands  the  constant  testimony 
of  our  Lord  and  His  apostles,  that  it  is  only  through 
the  shedding  of  blood  not  his  own  that  man  can  have 
remission  of  sin. 

But  Leviticus  presents  not  only  a  ritual,  but  also  a 
body  of  civil  law  for  the  theocracy.  Hence  it  comes 
that  the  book  is  of  use  for  to-day,  as  suggesting 
principles  which  should  guide  human  legislators  who 
would  rule  according  to  the  mind  of  God.  Not,  indeed, 
that  the  laws  in  their  detail  should  be  adopted  in  our 
modern  states ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  principles 
which  underlie  those  laws  are  eternal.  Social  and 
governmental  questions  have  come  to  the  front  in  our 
time  as  never  before.  The  question  of  the  relation  of 
the  civil  government  to  religion,  the  question  of  the 
rights  of  labour  and  of  capital,  of  land-holding,  that 
which  by  a  suggestive  euphemism  we  call  ^'  the  social 
evil,"  with  its  related  subjects  of  marriage  and  divorce, — 
all  these  are  claiming  attention  as  never  before.     There 


26  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

is  not  one  of  these  questions  on  whicli  the  legislation 
of  Leviticus  does  not  cast  a  flood  of  light,  into  which 
our  modern  law-makers  would  do  well  to  come  and 
walk. 

For  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  this ;  that  if 
God  has  indeed  once  stood  to  a  commonwealth  in  the 
relation  of  King  and  political  Head,  we  shall  be  sure 
to  discover  in  His  theocratic  law  upon  what  principles 
infinite  righteousness,  wisdom,  and  goodness  would 
deal  with  these  matters.  We  shall  thus  find  in  Leviticus 
that  the  law  which  it  contains,  from  beginning  to  end, 
stands  in  contradiction  to  that  modern  democratic 
secularism,  which  would  exclude  religion  from  govern- 
ment and  order  all  national  affairs  without  reference 
to  the  being  and  government  of  God  ;  and,  by  placing 
the  law  of  sacrifice  at  the  beginning  of  the  book,  it 
suggests  distinctly  enough  that  the  maintenance  of  right 
relation  to  God  is  fundamental  to  good  government. 

The  severity  of  many  of  the  laws  is  also  instructive 
in  this  connection.  The  trend  of  public  opinion  in 
many  communities  is  against  capital  punishment,  as 
barbarous  and  inhuman.  We  are  startled  to  observe 
the  place  which  this  has  in  the  Levitical  law ;  which 
exhibits  a  severity  far  removed  indeed  from  the  un- 
righteous and  undiscriminating  severity  of  the  earlier 
English  law,  but  no  less  so  from  the  more  undis- 
criminating leniency  which  has  taken  its  place,  espe- 
cially as  regards  those  crimes  in  which  large  numbers 
of  people  are  inclined  to  indulge. 

No  less  instructive  to  modern  law-makers  and 
political  economists  is  the  bearing  of  the  Levitical 
legislation  on  the  social  question,  the  relations  of  rich 
and  poor,  of  employer  and  employed.  It  is  a  legisla- 
tion which,  with  admirable  impartiality,  keeps  the  poor 


INTRODUCTORY  27 


man  and  the  rich  man  equally  in  view ;  a  body  of  law 
which,  if  strictly  carried  out,  would  have  made  in  Israel 
either  a  plutocracy  or  a  proletariat  alike  impossible. 
All  these  things  will  be  illustrated  in  the  course  of 
exposition.  Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  those 
among  us  who  are  sorely  perplexed  as  to  what  govern- 
ment should  do,  at  what  it  should  aim  in  these  matters, 
may  gain  help  by  studying  the  mind  of  Divine  wisdom 
concerning  these  questions,  as  set  forth  in  the  theocratic 
law  of  Leviticus. 

Further,  Leviticus  is  of  use  to  us  now  as  a  revelation 
of  Christ.  This  follows  from  what  has  been  already 
said  concerning  the  typical  character  of  the  law.  The 
book  is  thus  a  treasury  of  divinely-chosen  illustrations 
as  to  the  way  of  a  sinner's  salvation  through  the  priestly 
work  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  as  to  his  present  and 
future  position  and  dignity  as  a  redeemed  man. 

Finally,  and  for  this  same  reason,  Leviticus  is  still 
of  use  to  us  as  embodying  in  type  and  figure  prophecies 
of  things  yet  to  come,  pertaining  to  Messiah's  kingdom. 
We  must  not  imagine  with  some  that  because  many  of 
its  types  are  long  ago  fulfilled,  therefore  all  have  been 
fulfilled.  Many,  according  to  the  hints  of  the  New 
Testament,  await  their  fulfilment  in  a  bright  day  that  is 
coming.  Some,  for  instance,  of  the  feasts  of  the  Lord 
have  been  fulfilled ;  as  passover,  and  the  feast  of  Pente- 
cost. But  how  about  the  day  of  atonement  for  the  sin 
of  corporate  Israel  ?  We  have  seen  the  type  of  the  day 
of  atonement  fulfilled  in  the  entering  into  heaven  of  our 
great  High  Priest ;  but  in  the  type  He  came  out  again 
to  bless  the  people  :  has  that  been  fulfilled  ?  Has  He 
yet  proclaimed  absolution  of  sin  to  guilty  Israel  ?  How, 
again,  about  the  feast  of  trumpets,  and  that  of  the  in- 
gathering at  full  harvest?     How  about  the  Sabbatic 


28  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


year,  and  that  most  consummate  type  of  all,  the  year 
of  jubilee  ?  History  records  nothing  which  could  be 
held  a  fulfilment  of  any  of  these ;  and  thus  Leviticus 
bids  us  look  forward  to  a  glorious  future  yet  to  come, 
when  the  great  redemption  shall  at  last  be  accom- 
plished, and  "  Holiness  to  Jehovah  "  shall,  as  Zechariah 
puts  it  (xiv.  20),  be  written  even  "  on  the  bells  of  the 
horses." 


CHAPTER    II. 

SACRIFICE:    THE  BURNT-OFFERING, 
i.  2-4. 

THE  voice  of  Jehovah  which  had  spoken  not  long 
before  from  Sinai,  now  speaks  from  out  "  the  tent 
of  meeting."  There  was  a  reason  for  the  change.  For 
Israel  had  since  then  entered  into  covenant  with  God ; 
and  Moses,  as  the  mediator  of  the  covenant,  had  sealed 
it  by  sprinkling  with  blood  both  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  and  the  people.  And  therewith  they  had 
professedly  taken  Jehovah  for  their  God,  and  He  had 
taken  Israel  for  His  people.  In  infinite  grace,  He  had 
condescended  to  appoint  for  Himself  a  tabernacle  or 
"  tent  of  meeting,"  where  He  might,  in  a  special  manner, 
dwell  among  them,  and  manifest  to  them  His  will. 
The  tabernacle  had  been  made,  according  to  the  pattern 
shown  to  Moses  in  the  mount ;  and  it  had  been  now 
set  up.  And  so  now.  He  who  had  before  spoken  amid 
the  thunders  of  flaming,  trembling  Sinai,  speaks  from 
the  hushed  silence  of  ''the  tent  of  meeting."  The  first 
words  from  Sinai  had  been  the  holy  law,  forbidding 
sin  with  threatening  of  wrath  :  the  first  words  from 
the  tent  of  meeting  are  words  of  grace,  concerning 
fellowship  with  the  Holy  One  maintained  through 
sacrifice,  and  atonement  for  sin  by  the  shedding  of 
blood.     A  contrast  this  which  is  itself  a  Gospel ! 


30  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

The  offerings  of  which  we  read  in  the  next  seven 
chapters  are  of  two  kinds,  namely,  bloody  and  un- 
bloody offerings.  In  the  former  class  were  included 
the  burnt-offering,  the  peace-offering,  the  sin-offering, 
and  the  guilt-,  or  trespass-offering;  in  the  latter,  only 
the  meal-offering.  The  book  begins  with  the  law  of 
the  burnt-offering. 

In  any  exposition  of  this  law  of  the  offerings,  it  is 
imperative  that  our  interpretation  shall  be  determined, 
not  by  any  fancy  of  ours  as  to  what  the  offerings  might 
fitly  symbolise,  nor  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  be  limited 
by  what  we  may  suppose  that  any  Israelite  of  that  day 
might  have  thought  regarding  them  ;  but  by  the  state- 
ments concerning  them  which  are  contained  in  the  law 
itself,  and  in  other  parts  of  Holy  Scripture,  especially 
in  the  New  Testament. 

First  of  all,  we  may  observe  that  in  the  book  itself 
the  offerings  are  described  by  the  remarkable  expres- 
sion, "the  bread"  or  "food  of  God."  Thus,  it  is  com- 
manded (xxi.  6)  that  the  priests  should  not  defile 
themselves,  on  this  ground  :  "  the  offerings  of  the  Lord 
made  by  fire,  the  bread  of  their  God,  do  they  offer." 
It  was  an  ancient  heathen  notion  that  in  sacrifice,  food 
was  provided  for  the  Deity  in  order  thus  to  show 
Him  honour.  And,  doubtless,  in  Israel,  ever  prone  to 
idolatry,  there  were  many  who  rose  no  higher  than 
this  gross  conception  of  the  meaning  of  such  words. 
Thus,  in  Psalm  1.  8-15,  God  sharply  rebukes  Israel  for 
so  unworthy  thoughts  of  Himself,  using  language  at 
the  same  time  which  teaches  the  spiritual  meaning  of 
the  sacrifice,  regarded  as  the  "  food,"  or  "  bread,"  of 
God  :  "  1  will  not  reprove  thee  for  thy  sacrifices ;  and 
thy  burnt-offerings  are  continually  before  Me.  ...  I 
will  take  no  bullock  out  of  thy  house,  nor  he-goats  out 


i.2-4.]  SACRIFICE:    THE  BURNT-OFFERING.  31 

of  thy  stalls.  ...  If  I  were  hungry,  I  would  not  tell 
thee;  for  the  world  is  Mine,  and  the  fulness  thereof. 
Will  I  eat  the  flesh  of  bulls,  or  drink  the  blood  of 
goats  ?  Offer  unto  God  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving; 
and  pay  thy  vows  unto  the  Most  High;  and  call  upon 
Me  in  the  day  of  trouble :  I  will  deliver  thee  and  thou 
Shalt  glorify  Me." 

Of  which  language  the  plain  teaching  is  this.  If  the 
sacrifices  are  called  in  the  law  "the  bread  of  God," 
God  asks  not  this  bread  from  Israel  in  any  material 
sense,  or  for  any  material  need.  He  asks  that  which 
the  offerings  symbolise;  thanksgiving,  loyal  fulfilment 
of  covenant  engagements  to  Him,  and  that  loving  trust 
which  will  call  on  Him  in  the  day  of  trouble.  Even 
so !  Gratitude,  loyalty,  trust !  this  is  the  ''  food  of 
God,"  this  the  "  bread "  which  He  desires  that  we 
should  offer,  the  bread  which  those  Levitical  sacrifices 
symbolised.  For  even  as  man,  when  hungry,  craves 
food,  and  cannot  be  satisfied  without  it,  so  God,  who 
is  Himself  Love,  desires  our  love,  and  delights  in  seeing 
its  expression  in  all  those  offices  of  self-forgetting  and 
self-sacrificing  service  in  which  love  manifests  itself. 
This  is  to  God  even  as  is  food  to  us.  Love  cannot  be 
satisfied  except  with  love  returned ;  and  we  may  say, 
with  deepest  humility  and  reverence,  the  God  of  love 
cannot  be  satisfied  without  love  returned.  Hence  it 
is  that  the  sacrifices,  which  in  various  ways  symbolise 
the  self-offering  of  love  and  the  fellowship  of  love,  are 
called  by  the  Holy  Ghost  "  the  food,"  or  ^^  bread  of 
God." 

And  yet  we  must,  on  no  account,  hasten  to  the 
conclusion,  as  many  do,  that  therefore  the  Levitical 
sacrifices  were  only  intended  to  express  and  symbolise 
the    self-offering    of    the    worshipper,    and    that   this 


32  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

exhausts  their  significance.  On  the  contrary,  the  need 
of  infinite  Love  for  this  "  bread  of  God  "  cannot  be 
adequately  met  and  satisfied  by  the  self-offering  of  any 
creature,  and,  least  of  all,  by  the  self-offering  of  a  sinful 
creature,  whose  very  sin  lies  just  in  this,  that  he  has 
fallen  away  from  perfect  love.  The  symbolism  of  the 
sacrifice  as  "  the  food  of  God,"  therefore,  by  this  very 
phrase  points  toward  the  self-offering  in  love  of  the 
eternal  Son  to  the  Father,  and  in  behalf  of  sinners, 
for  the  Father's  sake.  It  was  the  sacrifice  on  Calvary 
which  first  became,  in  innermost  reality,  that  *'  bread  of 
God,"  which  the  ancient  sacrifices  were  only  in  symbol. 
It  was  this,  not  regarded  as  satisfying  Divine  justice 
(though  it  did  this),  but  as  satisfying  the  Divine  love ; 
because  it  was  the  supreme  expression  of  the  perfect 
love  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  to  the  Father,  in  His 
becoming  "  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross." 

And  now,  keeping  all  this  in  view,  we  may  venture 
to  say  even  more  than  at  first  as  to  the  meaning 
of  this  phrase,  *'the  bread  of  God,"  applied  to  these 
offerings  by  fire.  For  just  as  the  free  activity  of  man 
is  only  sustained  in  virtue  of  and  by  means  of  the  food 
which  he  eats,  so  also  the  love  of  the  God  of  love  is 
only  sustained  in  free  activity  toward  man  through  the 
self-offering  to  the  Father  of  the  Son,  in  that  atoning 
sacrifice  which  He  offered  on  the  cross,  and  in  the 
ceaseless  service  of  that  exalted  life  which,  risen  from 
the  dead,  Christ  now  lives  unto  God  for  ever.  Thus 
already,  this  expression,  so  strange  to  our  ears  at  first, 
as  descriptive  of  Jehovah's  offerings  made  by  fire, 
points  to  the  person  and  work  of  the  adorable  Redeemer 
as  its  only  sufficient  expHcation. 

But,   again,  we   find   another   expression,   xvii.   ii. 


i.2.]  SACRIFICE:    THE  BURNT-OFFERING.  33 

which  is  of  no  less  fundamental  consequence  for  the 
interpretation  of  the  bloody  offerings  of  Leviticus.  In 
connection  with  the  prohibition  of  blood  for  food, 
and  as  a  reason  for  that  prohibition,  it  is  said :  '^  The 
life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood ;  and  I  have  given  it 
to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  atonement  for  your 
souls ;  for  it  is  the  blood  that  maketh  atonement," — 
mark  the  expression ;  not,  as  in  the  received  version, 
"ybr  the  soul,"  which  were  mere  tautology,  and  gives 
a  sense  which  the  Hebrew  cannot  have,  but,  as  the 
Revised  Version  has  it, — "  by  reason  of  the  life,"  or 
"  soul "  (marg.).  Hence,  wherever  in  this  law  we 
read  of  a  sprinkling  of  blood  upon  the  altar,  this  must 
be  held  fast  as  its  meaning,  whether  it  be  formally 
mentioned  or  not ;  namely,  atonement  made  for  sinful 
man  through  the  life  of  an  innocent  victim  poured 
out  in  the  blood.  There  may  be,  and  often  are,  other 
ideas,  as  we  shall  see,  connected  with  the  offering, 
but  this  is  always  present.  To  argue,  then,  with  so 
many  in  modern  times,  that  because,  not  the  idea  of  an 
atonement,  but  that  of  a  sacrificial  meal  given  by  the 
worshipper  to  God,  is  the  dominant  conception  in  the 
sacrifices  of  the  ancient  nations,  therefore  we  cannot 
admit  the  idea  of  atonement  and  expiation  to  have 
been  intended  in  these  Levitical  sacrifices,  is  simply  to 
deny,  not  only  the  New  Testament  interpretation  of 
them,  but  the  no  less  express  testimony  of  the  record 
itself. 

But  it  is,  manifestly,  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
*'  impossible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should 
take  away  sins."  Hence,  we  are  again,  by  this  phrase 
also,  constrained  to  look  beyond  this  Levitical  shedding 
of  sacrificial  blood,  for  some  antitype  of  which  the 
innocent  victims  slain  at  that  altar  were  types  ;  one 

3 


THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


who,  by  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  should  do  that  in 
reality,  which  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting  was 
done  in  symbol  and  shadow. 

What  the  New  Testament  teaches  on  this  point  is 
known  to  every  one.  Christ  Jesus  was  the  Antitype,  to 
whose  all-sufficient  sacrifice  each  insufficient  sacrifice 
of  every  Levitical  victim  pointed.  John  the  Baptist 
struck  the  key-note  of  all  New  Testament  teaching  in 
this  matter,  when,  beholding  Jesus,  he  cried  (John  i. 
29),  ^'  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world."  Jesus  Christ  declared  the  same 
thought  again  and  again,  as  in  His  words  at  the 
sacramental  Supper :  "  This  is  My  blood  of  the  new 
covenant,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of 
sins."  Paul  expressed  the  same  thought,  when  he  said 
(Eph.  V.  2)  that  Christ  "gave  Himself  up  for  us,  an 
offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God,  for  an  odour  of  a  sweet 
smell ;  "  and  that  "  our  redemption,  the  forgiveness  of 
our  trespasses,"  is  "through  His  blood"  (Eph.  i.  7). 
And  Peter  also,  speaking  in  Levitical  language,  teaches 
that  we  "■  were  redeemed  .  .  .  with  precious  blood,  as  of 
a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot,  even  the  blood 
of  Christ ; "  to  which  he  adds  the  suggestive  words,  of 
which  this  whole  Levitical  ritual  is  the  most  striking 
illustration,  that  Christ,  although  "  manifested  at  the 
end  of  the  times,"  "  was  foreknown  "  as  the  Lamb  of 
God  "before  the  foundation  of  the  world"  (i  Peter  i. 
18-20).  John,  in  like  manner,  speaks  in  the  language 
of  Leviticus  concerning  Christ,  when  he  declares  (i 
John  i.  7)  that  "  the  blood  of  Jesus  .  .  .  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin ; "  and  even  in  the  Apocalypse,  which  is 
the  Gospel  of  Christ  glorified.  He  is  still  brought 
before  us  as  a  Lamb  that  had  been  slain,  and  who  has 
thus  *^  purchased  with  His  blood  men  of  every  tribe, 


1.2.]  SACRIFICE:    THE  BURNT-OFFERING.  35 

and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation,"  "  to  be  unto  our 
God  a  kingdom  and  priests"  (Rev.  v.  6,  9,  10). 

In  this  clear  light  of  the  New  Testament,  one  can 
see  how  meagre  also  is  the  view  of  some  who  would 
see  in  these  Levitical  sacrifices  nothing  more  than 
fines  assessed  upon  the  guilty,  as  theocratic  penalties. 
Leviticus  itself  should  have  taught  such  better  than 
that.  For,  as  we  have  seen,  the  virtue  of  the  bloody 
offerings  is  made  to  consist  in  this,  that  ''the  life  of 
the  flesh  is  in  the  blood;"  and  we  are  told  that  '*the 
blood  makes  atonement  for  the  soul,"  not  in  virtue  of 
the  monetary  value  of  the  victim,  in  a  commercial  way, 
but  **  by  reason  of  the  life  "  that  is  in  the  blood,  and 
is  therewith  poured  out  before  Jehovah  on  the  altar, — 
the  life  of  an  innocent  victim  in  the  stead  of  the  life  of 
the  sinful  man. 

No  less  inadequate,  if  we  are  to  let  ourselves  be 
guided  either  by  the  Levitical  or  the  New  Testament 
teaching,  is  the  view  that  the  offerings  only  symbolised 
the  self-offering  of  the  worshipper.  We  do  not  deny, 
indeed,  that  the  sacrifice — of  the  burnt-offering,  for 
example — may  have  fitly  represented,  and  often  really 
expressed,  the  self-consecration  of  the  offerer.  But,  in 
the  light  of  the  New  Testament,  this  can  never  be  held 
to  have  been  the  sole,  or  even  the  chief,  reason  in  the 
mind  of  God  for  directing  these  outpourings  of  sacrificial 
blood  upon  the  altar. 

We  must  insist,  then,  on  this,  as  essential  to  the 
right  interpretation  of  this  law  of  the  offerings,  that 
every  one  of  these  bloody  offerings  of  Leviticus  typified, 
and  was  intended  to  typify,  our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ 
The  burnt-offering  represented  Christ;  the  peace- 
offering,  Christ ;  the  sin-offering,  Christ ;  the  guilt-,  or 
trespass-offering,  Christ.    Moreover,  since  each  of  these. 


36  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

as  intended  especially  to  shadow  forth  some  particular 
aspect  of  Christ's  work,  differed  in  some  respects  from 
all  the  others,  while  yet  in  all  alike  a  victim's  blood  was 
shed  upon  the  altar,  we  are  by  this  reminded  that  in  our 
Lord's  redemptive  work  the  most  central  and  essential 
thing  is  this,  that,  as  He  Himself  said  (Matt.  xx.  28), 
He  ''  came  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many." 

Keeping  this  guiding  thought  steadily  before  us,  it 
is  now  our  work  to  discover,  if  we  may,  what  special 
aspect  of  the  one  great  sacrifice  of  Christ  each  of  these 
offerings  was  intended  especially  to  represent. 

Only,  by  way  of  caution,  it  needs  to  be  added  that 
we  are  not  to  imagine  that  every  minute  circumstance 
pertaining  to  each  sacrifice,  in  all  its  varieties,  must 
have  been  intended  to  point  to  some  correspondent 
feature  of  Christ's  person  or  work.  On  the  contrary, 
we  shall  frequently  see  reason  to  believe  that  the 
whole  purpose  of  one  or  another  direction  of  the  ritual 
is  to  be  found  in  the  conditions,  circumstances,  or  im- 
mediate intention  of  the  offering.  Thus,  to  illustrate, 
when  a  profound  interpreter  suggests  that  the  reason 
for  the  command  that  the  victim  should  be  slain  on  the 
north  side  of  the  altar,  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  north,  as  the  side  of  shadow,  signifies  the  gloom 
and  joylessness  of  the  sacrificial  act,  we  are  inclined 
rather  to  see  sufficient  reason  for  the  prescription  in 
the  fact  that  the  other  three  sides  were  already  in  a 
manner  occupied :  the  east,  as  the  place  of  ashes ;  the 
south,  as  fronting  the  entrance ;  and  the  west,  as  facing 
the  tent  of  meeting  and  the  brazen  laver. 

The  Ritual  of  the  Burnt-offering. 

In  the  law  of  the  offerings,  that  of  the  burnt-offering 
comes  first,  though  in  the  order  of  the  ritual  it  was  not 


i.2.]  SACRIFICE:    THE  BURNT-OFFERING.  37 


first,  but  second,  following  the  sin-offering.  In  this 
order  of  mention  we  need,  however,  seek  no  mystic 
meaning.  The  burnt-offering  was  very  naturally  men- 
tioned first,  as  being  the  most  ancient,  and  also  in  the 
most  constant  and  familiar  use.  We  read  of  burnt- 
offerings  as  offered  by  Noah  and  Abraham ;  and  of 
peace-offerings,  too,  in  early  times;  while  the  sin- 
offering  and  the  guilt-offering,  in  Leviticus  treated  last, 
were  now  ordered  for  the  first  time.  So  also  the  burnt- 
offering  was  still,  by  Divine  ordinance,  to  be  the  most 
common.  No  day  could  pass  in  the  tabernacle  without 
the  offering  of  these.  Indeed,  except  on  the  great  day 
of  atonement  for  the  nation,  in  the  ritual  for  v/hich,  the 
sin-offering  was  the  central  act,  the  burnt-offering  was 
the  most  important  sacrifice  on  all  the  great  feast-days. 
The  first  law,  which  applies  to  bloody  offerings  in 
general,  was  this  :  that  the  victim  shall  be  ^'of  the  cattle, 
even  of  the  herd  and  of  the  flock  "  (ver.  2)  ;  to  which  is 
added,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter  (ver.  14),  the  turtle- 
dove or  young  pigeon.  The  carnivora  are  all  excluded  ; 
for  these,  which  live  by  the  death  of  others,  could  never 
typify  Him  who  should  come  to  give  life.  And  among 
others,  only  clean  beasts  could  be  taken.  Israel  must 
not  offer  as  "  the  food  of  God  "  that  which  they  might 
not  eat  for  their  own  food  ;  nor  could  that  which  was 
held  unclean  be  taken  as  a  type  of  the  Holy  Victim  of 
the  future.  And,  even  among  clean  animals,  a  further 
selection  is  made.  Only  domestic  animals  were  allowed  ; 
not  even  a  clean  animal  was  permitted,  if  it  were  taken 
in  hunting.  For  it  was  fitting  that  one  should  offer 
to  God  that  which  had  become  endeared  to  the  owner 
as  having  cost  the  most  of  care  and  labour  in  its 
bringing  up.  For  this,  also,  we  can  easily  see  another 
reason   in  the  Antitype.     Nothing  was  to  mark   Him 


38  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


more  than  this  :  that  He  should  be  subject  and  obey, 
and  that  not  of  constraint,  as  the  unwilling  captive  of 
the  chase,  but  freely  and  unresistingly. 

And  now  follow  the  special  directions  for  the  burnt- 
offering.  The  Hebrew  word  so  rendered  means,  liter- 
ally, **  that  which  ascends."  It  thus  precisely  describes 
the  burnt-offering  in  its  most  distinctive  characteristic. 
Of  the  other  offerings,  a  part  was  burned,  but  a  part 
was  eaten ;  in  some  instances,  even  by  the  offerer 
himself.  But  in  the  burnt-offering  all  ascends  to  God 
in  flame  and  smoke.  For  the  creature  is  reserved 
nothing  whatever. 

The  first  specification  in  the  law  of  the  burnt-offering 
is  this :  ''  If  his  oblation  be  a  burnt-offering  of  the 
herd,  he  shall  offer  it  a  male  without  blemish  "  (ver.  3). 
It  must  be  a  "  male,"  as  the  stronger,  the  type  of  its 
kind ;  and  "  without  blemish,"  that  is,  ideally  perfect. 

The  reasons  for  this  law  are  manifest.  The  Israelite 
was  thereby  taught  that  God  claims  the  best  that  v/e 
have.  They  needed  this  lesson,  as  many  among  us  do 
still.  At  a  later  day,  we  find  God  rebuking  them  by 
Malachi  (i.  6,  13),  with  indignant  severity,  for  their 
neglect  of  this  law  :  *'  A  son  honoureth  his  father  :  .  .  . 
if  then  I  be  a  Father,  where  is  My  honour  ?  .  .  . 
Ye  have  brought  that  which  was  taken  by  violence, 
and  the  lame,  and  the  sick ;  .  .  .  should  I  accept  this 
of  your  hand  ?  saith  the  Lord."  And  as  pointing  to 
our  Lord,  the  command  was  no  less  fitting.  Thus,  as 
in  other  sacrifices,  it  was  foreshadowed  that  the  great 
Burnt-offering  of  the  future  would  be  the  one  Man 
without  blemish,  the  absolutely  perfect  Exemplar  of 
what  manhood  should  be,  but  is  not. 

And  this  brings  us  now  to  the  ritual  of  the  offering. 
In   the  ritual  of  the  various  bloody  offerings  we  find 


i.3.]  SACRIFICE:    THE  BURNT-OFFERING.  39 

six  parts.  These  are :  (i)  the  Presentation  ;  (2)  the 
Laying  on  of  the  Hand  ;  (3)  the  KiUing  of  the  Victim  ; 
in  which  three  the  ritual  was  the  same  for  all  kinds  of 
offerings.  The  remaining  three  are  :  (4)  the  Sprinkling 
of  Blood  ;  (5)  the  Burning ;  (6)  the  Sacrificial  Meal. 
In  these,  differences  appear  in  the  various  sacrifices, 
which  give  each  its  distinctive  character;  and,  in  the 
burnt-offering,  the  sacrificial  meal  is  omitted, — the 
whole  is  burnt  upon  the  altar. 
First  is  given  the  law  concerning 

The  Presentation  of  the  Victim. 

"  He  shall  offer  it  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting,  that  he  may 
be  accepted  before  the  Lord  "  (ver.  3). 

In  this  it  was  ordered,  first,  that  the  offerer  should 
bring  the  victim  himself.  There  were  parts  of  the 
ceremony  in  which  the  priest  acted  for  him ;  but  this 
he  must  do  for  himself.  Even  so,  he  who  will  have 
the  saving  benefit  of  Christ's  sacrifice  must  himself 
bring  this  Christ  before  the  Lord.  As  by  so  doing, 
the  Israelite  signified  his  acceptance  of  God's  gracious 
arrangements  concerning  sacrifice,  so  do  we,  bringing 
Christ  in  our  act  of  faith  before  the  Lord,  express  our 
acceptance  of  God's  arrangement  on  our  behalf;  our 
readiness  and  sincere  desire  to  make  use  of  Christ,  who 
is  appointed  for  us.  And  this  no  man  can  do  for 
another. 

And  the  offering  must  be  presented  for  a  certain 
purpose  ;  namely,  '*  that  he  may  be  accepted  before  the 
Lord  ; "  '^  and  that,  as  the  context  tells  us,  not  because  of 
a  present  made  to  God,  but  through  an  atoning  sacrifice. 

'  The  usage  of  the  common  Hebrew  phrase  so  rendered  does  not 
warrant  the  translation  in  the  old  version  :  "  of  his  voluntary  will." 


40  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

And  so  now  it  is  not  enough  that  a  man  make  much 
of  Christ,  and  mention  Him  in  terms  of  praise  before 
the  Lord,  as  the  One  whom  He  would  imitate  and  seek 
to  serve.  He  must  in  his  act  of  faith  bring  this  Christ 
before  the  Lord,  in  such  wise  as  to  secure  thus  his 
personal  acceptance  through  the  blood  of  the  Holy 
Victim. 

And,  finally,  the  place  of  presentation  is  prescribed. 
It  must  be  "  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting."  It 
is  easy  to  see  the  original  reason  for  this.  For,  as  we 
learn  from  other  Scriptures,  the  Israelites  were  ever 
prone  to  idolatry,  and  that  especially  at  places  other 
than  the  appointed  temple  or  tent  of  meeting,  in  the 
fields  and  on  high  places.  Hence  the  immediate  pur- 
pose of  this  order  concerning  the  place,  was  to  separate 
the  worship  of  God  from  the  worship  of  false  gods. 
There  is  now,  indeed,  no  law  concerning  the  place 
where  we  may  present  the  great  Sacrifice  before  God. 
At  home,  in  the  closet,  in  the  church,  on  the  street, 
wherever  we  will,  we  may  present  this  Christ  in  our 
behalf  and  stead  as  a  Holy  Victim  before  God.  And 
yet  the  principle  which  underlies  this  ordinance  of 
place  is  no  less  applicable  in  this  age  than  then.  For 
it  is  a  prohibition  of  all  self-will  in  worship.  It  was 
not  enough  that  an  Israelite  should  have  the  prescribed 
victim ;  it  is  not  enough  that  we  present  the  Christ  of 
God  in  faith,  or  what  we  think  to  be  faith.  But  we 
must  make  no  terms  or  conditions  as  to  the  mode  or 
condition  of  the  presentation,  other  than  God  appoints. 
And  the  command  was  also  a  command  of  publicity. 
The  Israelite  was  therein  commanded  to  confess  publicly, 
and  thus  attest,  his  faith  in  Jehovah,  even  as  God  will 
now  have  us  all  make  our  confession  of  Christ  a  public 
thing. 


i.4.]  SACRIFICE:    THE  BURNT-OFFERING.  41 

The  second  act  of  the  ceremonial  was 

The  Laying  on  of  the  Hand, 
It  was  ordered  : 

"He  shall  lay  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the  burnt  ofi'ering;  and  it 
shall  be  accepted  for  him,  to  make  atonement  for  him  "  (ver.  4). 

The  laying  on  of  the  hand  was  not,  as  some  have 
maintained,  a  mere  declaration  of  the  offerer's  property 
in  that  which  he  offered,  as  showing  his  right  to  give 
it  to  God.  If  this  were  true,  we  should  find  the  cere- 
mony also  in  the  bloodless  offerings ;  where  the  cakes 
of  corn  were  no  less  the  property  of  the  offerer  than 
the  bullock  or  sheep  of  the  burnt-offering.  But  the 
ceremony  was  confined  to  these  bloody  offerings. 

It  is  nearer  the  truth  when  others  say  that  this  was 
an  act  of  designation.  It  is  a  fact  that  the  ceremony 
of  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  Scripture  usage  does 
indicate  a  designation  of  a  person  or  thing,  as  to  some 
office  or  service.  In  this  book  (xxiv.  14),  the  wit- 
nesses are  directed  to  lay  their  hands  upon  the  blas- 
phemer, thereby  appointing  him  to  death.  Moses  is 
said  to  have  laid  his  hands  on  Joshua,  thus  designating 
him  in  a  formal  way  as  his  successor ;  and,  in  the  New 
Testament,  Paul  and  Barnabas  are  set  apart  to  the 
ministry  by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  But,  in  all  these 
cases,  the  ceremony  symbolised  more  than  mere  desig- 
nation ;  namely,  a  transfer  or  communication  of  some- 
thing invisible,  in  connection  with  this  visible  act. 
Thus,  in  the  New  Testament  the  laying  on  of  hands 
always  denotes  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
either  as  an  enduement  for  office,  or  for  bodily  healing. 
The  laying  of  the  hands  of  Moses  on  Joshua,  in  like 
manner,   signified   the   transfer   to   him   of   the   gifts, 


42  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

office,  and  authority  of  Moses.  Even  in  the  case  of 
the  execution  of  the  blaspheming  son  of  Shelomith,  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  witnesses  had  the  same 
significance.  They  thereby  designated  him  to  death, 
no  doubt ;  but  therewith  thus  symbolically  transferred 
to  the  criminal  the  responsibility  for  his  own  death. 

From  the  analogy  of  these  cases  we  should  expect 
to  find  evidence  of  an  ideal  transference  of  somewhat 
from  the  offerer  to  the  victim  here.  And  the  context 
does  not  leave  the  matter  doubtful.  It  is  added  (ver.  4), 
"  It  shall  be  accepted  for  him,  to  make  atonement  for 
him."  Hence  it  appears  that  while,  indeed,  the  offerer, 
by  this  laying  on  of  his  hand,  did  dedicate  the  victim 
to  death,  the  act  meant  more  than  this.  It  symbolised 
a  transfer,  according  to  God's  merciful  provision,  of  an 
obligation  to  suffer  for  sin,  from  the  offerer  to  the 
innocent  victim.  Henceforth,  the  victim  stood  in  the 
offerer's  place,  and  was  dealt  with  accordingly. 

This  is  well  illustrated  by  the  account  which  is  given 
(Numb,  viii.)  of  the  formal  substitution  of  the  Levites 
in  the  place  of  all  the  first-born  of  Israel,  for  special 
service  unto  God.  We  read  that  the  Levites  were 
presented  before  the  Lord ;  and  that  the  children  of 
Israel  then  laid  their  hands  upon  the  heads  of  the 
Levites,  who  were  thus,  we  are  told,  ^'  offered  as  an 
offering  unto  the  Lord,"  and  were  thenceforth  regarded 
and  treated  as  substitutes  for  the  first-born  of  all 
Israel.  Thus  the  obligation  to  certain  special  service 
was  symbolically  transferred,  as  the  context  tells  us, 
from  the  first-born  to  the  Levites ;  and  this  transfer 
of  obligation  from  all  the  tribes  to  the  single  tribe 
of  Levi  was  visibly  represented  by  the  laying  on  of 
hands.  And  just  so  here :  the  laying  on  of  the  hand 
designated,  certainly,  the  victim  to  death  ;  but  it  did 


i.4.]  SACRIFICE:    THE  BURNT-OFFERING.  43 


this,  in  that  it  was  the  symbol  of  a  transfer  of 
obHgation. 

This  view  of  the  ceremony  is  decisively  confirmed 
by  the  ritual  of  the  great  day  of  atonement.  In  the 
sin-offering  of  that  day,  in  which  the  conception  of 
expiation  by  bicod  received  its  fullest  symbolic  expres- 
sion, it  was  ordered  (xvi.  21)  that  Aaron  should  lay 
his  hands  on  the  head  of  one  of  the  goats  of  the  sin- 
offering,  and  "  confess  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of 
the  children  of  Israel."  Thereupon  the  iniquity  of  the 
nation  was  regarded  as  symbolically  transferred  from 
Israel  to  the  goat ;  for  it  is  added,  "  and  the  goat  shall 
bear  upon  him  all  their  iniquities  unto  a  solitary  land." 
So,  while  in  this  ritual  for  the  burnt-offering  there  is 
no  mention  of  such  confession,  we  have  every  reason 
to  believe  the  uniform  Rabbinical  tradition,  that  it  was 
the  custom  to  make  also  upon  the  head  of  the  victim 
for  the  burnt-offering  a  solemn  confession  of  sin,  for 
which  they  give  the  form  to  be  used. 

Such  then  was  the  significance  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands.  But  the  ceremony  meant  even  more  than  this. 
For  the  Hebrew  verb  which  is  always  used  for  this, 
as  the  Rabbis  point  out,  does  not  merely  mean  to  lay 
the  hand  upon,  but  so  to  lay  the  hand  as  to  rest  or 
lean  heavily  upon  the  victim.  This  force  of  the  word 
is  well  illustrated  from  a  passage  where  it  occurs,  in 
Psalm  Ixxxviii.  7,  "  Thy  wrath  lieth  hard  upon  me."  The 
ceremony,  therefore,  significantly  represented  the  offerer 
as  resting  or  relying  on  the  victim  to  procure  that  from 
God  for  which  he  presented  him,  namely,  atonement 
and  acceptance. 

This  part  of  the  ceremonial  of  this  and  other  sacrifices 
was  thus  full  of  spiritual  import  and  typical  meaning. 
By  this  laying  on  of  the  hand  to  designate  the  victim  as 


44  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

a  sacrifice,  the  offerer  implied,  and  probably  expressed, 
a  confession  of  personal  sin  and  demerit ;  as  done 
*'  before  Jehovah,"  it  implied  also  his  acceptance  oi 
God's  penal  judgment  against  his  sin.  It  implied, 
moreover,  in  that  the  offering  was  made  according  to 
an  arrangement  ordained  by  God,  that  the  offerer  also 
thankfully  accepted  God's  merciful  provision  for  atone- 
ment, by  which  the  obligation  to  suffer  for  sin  was 
transferred  from  himself,  the  guilty  sinner,  to  the 
sacrificial  victim.  And,  finally,  in  that  the  offerer  was 
directed  so  to  lay  his  hand  as  to  rest  upon  the  victim, 
it  was  most  expressively  symboHsed  that  he,  the  sinful 
Israelite,  rested  and  depended  on  this  sacrifice  as  the 
atonement  for  his  sin,  his  divinely  appointed  substitute 
in  penal  death. 

What  could  more  perfectly  set  forth  the  way  in 
which  we  are  for  our  salvation  to  make  use  of  the 
Lamb  of  God  as  slain  for  us  ?  By  faith,  we  lay  the 
hand  upon  His  head.  In  this,  we  do  frankly  and 
penitently  own  the  sins  for  which,  as  the  great  Burnt- 
sacrifice,  the  Christ  of  God  was  offered  ;  we  also,  in 
humihty  and  self-abasement,  thus  accept  the  judgment 
of  God  against  ourselves,  that  because  of  sin  we  de- 
serve to  be  cast  out  from  Him  eternally ;  while,  at  the 
same  time,  we  most  thankfully  accept  this  Christ  as 
"the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world,"  and  therefore  our  sins  also,  if  we  will  but  thus 
make  use  of  Him ;  and  so  lean  and  rest  with  all  the 
burden  of  our  sin  on  Him. 

For  the  Israelite  who  should  thus  lay  his  hand  upon 
the  head  of  the  sacrificial  victim  a  promise  follows. 
"  It  shall  be  accepted  for  him,  to  make  atonement  for 
him." 


i.4.]  SACRIFICE:    THE  BURNT-OFFERING.  45 

In  this  word  "  atonement  "  we  are  introduced  to  one 
of  the  key- words  of  Leviticus,  as  indeed  of  the  whole 
Scripture.  The  Hebrew  radical  originally  means  ''to 
cover/'  and  is  used  once  (Gen.  vi.  14)  in  this  purely 
physical  sense.  But,  commonly,  as  here,  it  means  "to 
cover  "  in  a  spiritual  sense,  that  is,  to  cover  the  sinful 
person  from  the  sight  of  the  Holy  God,  who  is  "  of 
purer  eyes  than  to  behold  evil."  Hence,  it  is  commonly 
rendered  "to  atone,"  or  "to  make  atonement;"  also, 
"  to  reconcile,"  or  "  to  make  reconciliation."  The 
thought  is  this :  that  between  the  sinner  and  the  Holy 
One  comes  now  the  guiltless  victim  ;  so  that  the  eye  of 
God  looks  not  upon  the  sinner,  but  on  the  offered  sub- 
stitute ;  and  in  that  the  blood  of  the  substituted  victim 
is  offered  before  God  for  the  sinner,  atonement  is  made 
for  sin,  and  the  Most  Holy  One  is  satisfied. 

And  when  the  believing  Israelite  should  lay  his  hand 
with  confession  of  sin  upon  the  appointed  victim,  it  was 
graciously  promised  :  "  It  shall  be  accepted  for  him,  to 
make  atonement  for  him."  And  just  so  now,  when- 
ever any  guilty  sinner,  fearing  the  deserved  wrath  of 
God  because  of  his  sin,  especially  because  of  his  lack 
of  that  full  consecration  which  the  burnt-sacrifice  set 
forth,  lays  his  hand  in  faith  upon  the  great  Burnt- 
offering  of  Calvary,  the  blessing  is  the  same.  For  in 
the  light  of  the  cross,  this  Old  Testament  word  becomes 
now  a  sweet  New  Testament  promise  :  "  When  thou 
shalt  rest  with  the  hand  of  faith  upon  this  Lamb  of 
God,  He  shall  be  accepted  for  thee,  to  make  atone- 
ment for  thee." 

This  is  most  beautifully  expressed  in  an  ancient 
"Order  for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,"  attributed  to 
Anselm  of  Canterbury,  in  which  it  is  written  :  — 

"  The   minister   shall   say    to   the  sick  man :    Dost 


46  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

thou  believe  that  thou  canst  not  be  saved  but  by  the 
death  of  Christ  ?  The  sick  man  answereth,  Yes.  Then 
let  it  be  said  unto  him :  Go  to,  then,  and  whilst  thy 
soul  abideth  in  thee,  put  all  thy  confidence  in  this 
death  alone ;  place  thy  trust  in  no  other  thing ;  commit 
thyself  wholly  to  this  death  ;  cover  thyself  wholly  with 
this  alone.  .  .  .  And  if  God  would  judge  thee,  say: 
Lord !  I  place  the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
between  me  and  Thy  judgment ;  otherwise  I  will  not 
contend  or  enter  into  judgment  with  Thee. 

"And  if  He  shall  say  unto  thee  that  thou  art  a 
sinner,  say  :  I  place  the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
between  me  and  my  sins.  If  He  shall  say  unto  thee, 
that  thou  hast  deserved  damnation,  say :  Lord !  I  put 
the  death  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  between  Thee  and 
all  my  sins ;  and  I  offer  His  merits  for  my  ovv'n,  which 
I  should  have,  and  have  not." 

And  whosoever  of  us  can  thus  speak,  to  him  the 
promise  speaks  from  out  the  shadows  of  the  tent 
of  meeting  :  "This  Christ,  the  Lamb  of  God,  the  true 
Burnt-offering,  shall  be  accepted  for  thee,  to  make 
atonement  for  thee  !  ' 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE   BURNT-OFFERING   (CONCLUDED). 
Lev.  i.  5-17;  vi.  8-13. 

AFTER  the  laying  on  of  the  hand,  the  next  sacri- 
ficial act  was — 

The  Killing  of  the  Victim. 

"And  he  shall  kill  the  bullock  before  the  Lord  "  (ver.  5). 

In  the  light  of  what  has  been  already  said,  the  sig- 
nificance of  this  killing,  in  a  typical  way,  will  be  quite 
clear.  For  with  the  first  sin,  and  again  and  again 
thereafter,  God  had  denounced  death  as  the  penalty 
of  sin.  But  here  is  a  sinner  who,  in  accord  with  a 
Divine  command,  brings  before  God  a  sacrificial  victim, 
on  whose  head  he  lays  his  hand,  on  which  he  thus 
rests  as  he  confesses  his  sins,  and  gives  over  the 
innocent  victim  to  die  instead  of  himself.  Thus  each 
of  these  sacrificial  deaths,  whether  in  the  burnt-offering, 
the  peace-offering,  or  the  sin-offering,  brings  ever  before 
us  the  death  in  the  sinner's  stead  of  that  one  Holy 
Victim  who  suffered  for  us,  "  the  just  for  the  unjust," 
and  thus  laid  down  His  life,  in  accord  with  His  own 
previously  declared  intention,  "as  a  ransom  for  many.'* 

In  the  sacrifices  made  by  and  for  individuals,  the 
victim  was  killed,  except  in  the  case  of  the  turtle-dove 
or  pigeon,  by  the  offerer  himself;  but,  very  naturally, 


48  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


in  the  case  of  the  national  and  public  offerings,  it  was 
killed  by  the  priest.  As,  in  this  latter  case,  it  was 
impossible  that  all  individual  Israelites  should  unite  in 
killing  the  victim,  it  is  plain  that  the  priest  herein  acted 
as  the  representative  of  the  nation.  Hence  we  may 
properly  say  that  the  fundamental  thought  of  the  ritual 
was  this,  that  the  victim  should  be  killed  by  the  offerer 
himself. 

And  by  this  ordinance  we  may  well  be  reminded,  first, 
how  Israel, — for  whose  sake  as  a  nation  the  antitypical 
Sacrifice  was  offered, — Israel  itself  became  the  execu- 
tioner of  the  Victim  ;  and,  beyond  that,  how,  in  a  deeper 
sense,  every  sinner  must  regard  himself  as  truly  causal 
of  the  Saviour's  death,  in  that,  as  is  often  truly  said, 
our  sins  nailed  Christ  to  His  cross.  But  whether  such 
a  reference  were  intended  in  this  law  of  the  offering 
or  not,  the  great,  significant,  outstanding  fact  remains, 
that  as  soon  as  the  offerer,  by  his  laying  on  of  the  hand, 
signified  the  transfer  of  the  personal  obligation  to  die 
for  sin  from  himself  to  the  sacrificial  victim,  then  came  at 
once  upon  that  victim  the  penalty  denounced  against  sin. 

And  the  added  words,  "before  the  Lord,"  cast  further 
light  upon  this,  in  that  they  remind  us  that  the  killing 
of  the  victim  had  reference  to  Jehovah,  whose  holy  law 
the  offerer,  failing  of  that  perfect  consecration  which 
the  burnt-offering  symbolised,  had  failed  to  glorify  and 
honour. 

The  Sprinkling  of  Blood. 

"And  Aaron's  sons,  the  priests,  shall  present  the  blood,  and  sprinkle 
the  blood  round  about  upon  the  altar  that  is  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of 
meeting"  (ver.  5). 

And  now  follows  the  fourth  act  in  the  ceremonial, 
the  Sprinkhng  of  the  Blood.     The  offerer's  part  is  now 


i.  5.]  THE  BURNT-OFFERING  {CONCLUDED).  49 

done,  and  herewith  the  work  of  the  priest  begins. 
Even  so  must  we,  having  laid  the  hand  of  faith  upon 
the  head  of  the  substituted  Lamb  of  God,  now  leave 
it  to  the  heavenly  Priest  to  act  in  our  behalf  with  God. 

The  directions  to  the  priest  as  to  the  use  of  the  blood 
vary  in  the  different  offerings,  according  as  the  design 
is  to  give  greater  or  less  prominence  to  the  idea  of 
expiation.  In  the  sin-offering  this  has  the  foremost 
place.  But  in  the  burnt-offering,  as  also  in  the  peace- 
offering,  although  the  conception  of  atonement  by  blood 
was  not  absent,  it  was  not  the  dominant  conception  of 
the  sacrifice.  Hence,  while  the  sprinkling  of  blood  by 
the  priest  could  in  no  wise  be  omitted,  it  took  in  this 
case  a  subordinate  place  in  the  ritual.  It  was  to  be 
sprinkled  only  on  the  sides  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering 
which  stood  in  the  outer  court.  We  read  (ver.  5): 
"  Aaron's  sons,  the  priests,  shall  present  the  blood, 
and  sprinkle  the  blood  round  about  upon  the  altar  that 
is  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting." 

It  was  in  this  sprinkling  of  the  blood  that  the  atoning 
work  was  completed.  The  altar  had  been  appointed 
as  a  place  of  Jehovah's  special  presence ;  it  had  been 
designated  as  a  place  where  God  would  come  unto  man 
to  bless  him.  Thus,  to  present  and  sprinkle  the  blood 
upon  the  altar  was  symbolically  to  present  the  blood 
unto  God.  And  the  blood  represented  life, — the  life 
of  an  innocent  victim  atoning  for  the  sinner,  because 
rendered  up  in  the  stead  of  his  life.  And  ih^  priests 
were  to  sprinkle  the  blood.  So,  while  to  bring  and 
present  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  to  lay  the  hand  of  faith 
upon  His  head,  is  our  part,  with  this  our  duty  ends. 
To  sprinkle  the  blood,  to  use  the  blood  God-ward  for 
the  remission  of  sin,  this  is  the  work  alone  of  our 
heavenly  Priest.     We  are  then  to  leave  that  with  Him. 

4 


50 


THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


Reserving  a  fuller  exposition  of  the  meaning  of  this 
sprinkling  of  blood  for  the  exposition  of  the  sin- 
offering,  in  which  it  was  the  central  act  of  the  ritual, 
we  pass  on  now  to  the  burning  of  the  sacrifice,  which 
in  this  offering  marked  the  culmination  of  its  special 
symbolism. 

The  Sacrificial  Burning. 
i.  6-9,  12,  13,  17. 

"  And  he  shall  flay  the  burnt  offering,  and  cut  it  into  its  pieces. 
And  the  sons  of  Aaron  the  priest  shall  put  fire  upon  the  altar,  and  lay 
wood  in  order  upon  the  fire  :  and  Aaron's  sons,  the  priests,  shall  lay 
the  pieces,  the  head,  and  the  fat,  in  order  upon  the  wood  that  is  on  the 
fire  which  is  upon  the  altar:  but  its  inwards  and  its  legs  shall  he 
wash  with  water  :  and  the  priest  shall  burn  the  whole  on  the  altar, 
for  a  burnt  offering,  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet  savour  unto  the 
Lord.  .  .  .  And  he  shall  cut  it  into  its  pieces,  with  its  head  and  its  fat : 
and  the  priest  shall  lay  them  in  order  on  the  wood  that  is  on  the  fire 
which  is  upon  the  altar :  but  the  inwards  and  the  legs  shall  he  wash 
with  water  :  and  the  priest  shall  offer  the  whole,  and  burn  it  upon 
the  altar :  it  is  a  burnt  offering,  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet 
savour  unto  the  Lord.  .  .  .  And  he  shall  rend  it  by  the  wings  thereof, 
but  shall  not  divide  it  asunder  :  and  the  priest  shall  burn  it  upon  the 
altar,  upon  the  wood  that  is  upon  the  fire:  it  is  a  burnt  offering 
an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord." 

It  was  the  distinguishing  peculiarity  of  the  burnt- 
offering,  from  which  it  takes  its  name,  that  in  every 
case  the  whole  of  it  was  burned,  and  thus  ascended 
heavenward  in  the  fire  and  smoke  of  the  altar.  The 
place  of  the  burning,  in  this  and  other  sacrifices,  is 
significant.  The  flesh  of  the  sin-offering,  when  not 
eaten,  was  to  be  burned  in  a  clean  place  without  the 
camp.  But  it  was  the  law  of  the  burnt-offering  that 
it  should  be  wholly  consumed  upon  the  holy  altar  at 
the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting.  In  the  directions  for 
the  burning  we  need  seek  for  no  occult  meaning;  the 


i.  6-9, 12, 13,  17.]    THE  BURNT-OFFERING  {CONCLUDED),    51 

most  of  them  are  evidently  intended  simply  as  means 
to  the  end;  namely,  the  consumption  of  the  offering 
with  the  utmost  readiness,  ease,  and  completeness. 
Hence  it  must  be  flayed  and  cut  into  its  pieces,  and 
carefully  arranged  upon  the  wood.  The  inwards  and 
the  legs  must  be  washed  with  water,  that  into  the 
offering,  as  to  be  offered  to  the  Holy  One,  might  come 
nothing  extraneous,  nothing  corrupt  and  unclean. 

In  vv.  10-13  and  14-17  provision  is  made  for  the 
offering  of  different  victims,  of  the  flock,  or  of  the 
fowls.  The  reason  for  this  permitted  variation,  although 
not  mentioned  here,  was  doubtless  the  same  which  is 
given  for  a  similar  permission  in  chap.  v.  7,  where  it 
is  ordered  that  if  the  offerer's  means  suffice  not  for 
a  certain  offering,  he  may  bring  one  of  less  value. 
Poverty  shall  be  no  plea  for  not  bringing  a  burnt- 
sacrifice;  to  the  Israelite  of  that  time  it  thus  set 
forth  the  truth,  that  "  if  there  first  be  a  willing  heart, 
it  is  accepted  according  to  that  a  man  hath,  and  not 
according  to  that  he  hath  not." 

The  variations  in  the  prescriptions  regarding  the 
different  victims  to  be  used  in  the  sacrifice  are  but 
slight.  The  bird  having  been  killed  by  the  priest  (why 
this  change  it  is  not  easy  to  see),  its  crop,  with  its 
contents  of  food  unassimilated,  and  therefore  not  a  part 
of  the  bird,  as  also  the  feathers,  was  to  be  cast  away. 
It  was  not  to  be  divided,  like  the  bullock,  and  the  sheep 
or  goat,  simply  because,  with  so  small  a  creature,  it  was 
not  necessary  to  the  speedy  and  entire  combustion  of 
the  offering.  In  each  case  alike,  the  declaration  is 
made  that  the  sacrifice,  thus  offered  and  wholly  burnt 
upon  the  altar,  is  *'  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet 
savour  unto  the  Lord." 

And  now  a  question  comes  before  us,  the  answer  to 


52  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

which  is  vital  to  the  right  understanding  of  the  burnt- 
offering,  whether  in  its  original  or  typical  import. 
What  was  the  significance  of  the  burning  ?  It  has 
been  very  often  answered  that  the  consumption  of  the 
victim  by  fire  symbolised  the  consuming  wrath  of 
Jehovah,  utterly  destroying  the  victim  which  repre- 
sented the  sinful  person  of  the  offerer.  And,  observing 
that  the  burning  followed  the  killing  and  shedding  of 
blood,  some  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  say  that  the 
burning  typified  the  eternal  fire  of  hell !  But  when  we 
remember  that,  without  doubt,  the  sacrificial  victim  in 
all  the  Levitical  offerings  was  a  type  of  our  blessed 
Lord,  we  may  well  agree  with  one  who  justly  calls  this 
interpretation  "hideous."  And  yet  many,  who  have 
shrunk  from  this,  have  yet  in  so  far  held  to  this  con- 
ception of  the  symbolic  meaning  of  the  burning  as  to 
insist  that  it  must  at  least  have  typified  those  fiery 
sufferings  in  which  our  Lord  offered  up  His  soul  for 
sin.  They  remind  us  how  often,  in  the  Scripture,  fire 
stands  as  the  symbol  of  the  consuming  wrath  of  God 
against  sia,  and  hence  argue  that  this  may  justly  be 
taken  here  as  the  symbolic  meaning  of  the  burning  of 
the  victim  on  the  altar. 

But  this  interpretation  is  nevertheless,  in  every  form, 
to  be  rejected.  As  regards  the  use  of  fire  as  a  symbol 
in  Holy  Scripture,  while  it  is  true  that  it  often  repre- 
sents the  punitive  wrath  of  God,  it  is  equally  certain 
that  it  has  not  always  this  meaning.  Quite  as  often 
it  is  the  symbol  of  God's  purifying  energy  and  might. 
Fire  was  not  the  symbol  of  Jehovah's  vengeance  in  the 
burning  bush.  When  the  Lord  is  represented  as  sitting 
''as  a  refiner  and  a  purifier  of  silver,"  surely  the  thought 
is  not  of  vengeance,  but  of  purifying  mercy.  We 
should  rather  say  that  fire,  in  Scripture  usage,  is  the 


i.6-9, 12, 13,  I7-]    THE  BURNT-OFFERING  {CONCLUDED).    53 


symbol  of  the  intense  energy  of  the  Divine  nature, 
which  continually  acts  upon  every  person  and  on  every 
thing,  according  to  the  nature  of  each  person  or  thing  ; 
here  conserving,  there  destroying ;  now  cleansing,  now 
consuming.  The  same  fire  which  burns  the  wood,  hay, 
and  stubble,  purifies  the  gold  and  the  silver. 

Hence,  while  it  is  quite  true  that  fire  often  typifies 
the  wrath  of  God  punishing  sin,  it  is  certain  that  it 
cannot  always  symbolise  this,  not  even  in  the  sacrificial 
ritual.  For  in  the  meal-offering  of  chap.  ii.  it  is  im- 
possible that  the  thought  of  expiation  should  enter 
since  no  life  is  offered  and  no  blood  is  shed ;  yet  this 
also  is  presented  unto  God  in  fire.  The  fire  then  in  this 
case  must  mean  something  else  than  the  Divine  wrath, 
and  presumably  must  mean  one  thing  in  all  the  sacri- 
fices. And  that  not  even  in  the  burnt-offering  can  the 
burning  of  the  sacrifice  symbolise  the  consuming  wrath 
of  God,  becomes  plain,  when  we  observe  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  uniform  teaching  of  the  sacrificial  ritual, 
atonement  is  already  fully  accomplished,  prior  to  the 
burning,  in  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood.  That  the 
burning,  which  follows  the  atonement,  should  have  any 
reference  to  Christ's  expiatory  sufferings,  is  thus  quite 
impossible. 

We  must  hold,  therefore,  that  the  burning  can  only 
mean  in  the  burnt-offering  that  which  alone  it  can 
signify  in  the  meal-offering ;  namely,  the  ascending  of 
the  offering  in  consecration  to  God,  on  the  one  hand  ; 
and,  on  the  other,  God's  gracious  acceptance  and  appro- 
priation of  the  offering.  This  was  impressively  set 
forth  in  the  case  of  the  burnt-offering  presented  when 
the  tabernacle  service  was  inaugurated ;  when,  we  are 
told  (ix.  24),  the  fire  which  consumed  it  came  forth 
from  before  Jehovah,  lighted  by  no  human  hand,  and 


54  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

was  thus  a  visible  representation  of  God  accepting  and 
appropriating  the  offering  to  Himself. 

The  symbolism  of  the  burning  thus  understood,  we 
can  now  perceive  what  must  have  been  the  special 
meaning  of  this  sacrifice.  As  regarded  by  the  believing 
Israelite  of  those  dayS;  not  yet  discerning  clearly  the 
deeper  truth  it  shadowed  forth  as  to  the  great  Burnt- 
sacrifice  of  the  future,  it  must  have  symbolically  taught 
him  that  complete  consecration  unto  God  is  essential  to 
right  worship.  There  were  sacrifices  having  a  different 
special  import,  in  which,  while  a  part  was  burnt,  the 
offerer  might  even  himself  join  in  eating  the  remaining 
part,  taking  that  for  his  own  use.  But,  in  the  burnt- 
offering,  nothing  was  for  himself :  all  was  for  God ;  and 
in  the  fire  of  the  altar  God  took  the  whole  in  such 
a  way  that  the  offering  for  ever  passed  beyond  the 
offerer's  recall.  In  so  far  as  the  offerer  entered  into 
this  conception,  and  his  inward  experience  corresponded 
to  this  outward  rite,  it  was  for  him  an  act  of  worship. 

But  to  the  thoughtful  worshipper,  one  would  think, 
it  must  sometimes  have  occurred  that,  after  all,  it  was 
not  himself  or  his  gift  that  thus  ascended  in  full  con- 
secration to  God,  but  a  victim  appointed  by  God  to 
represent  him  in  death  on  the  altar.  And  thus  it  was 
that,  whether  understood  or  not,  the  offering  in  its  very 
nature  pointed  to  a  Victim  of  the  future,  in  whose  person 
and  work,  as  the  One  only  fully-consecrated  Man,  the 
burnt-offering  should  receive  its  full  explication.  And 
this  brings  us  to  the  question.  What  aspect  of  the  person 
and  work  of  our  Lord  was  herein  specially  typified  ? 
It  cannot  be  the  resultant  fellowship  with  God,  as  in 
the  peace-offering ;  for  the  sacrificial  feast  which  set 
this  forth  was  in  this  case  wanting.  Neither  can  it  be 
expiation  for  sin  ;  for  although  this  is  expressly  repre- 


i.6-9, 12, 13,  I7-]    THE  BURNT-OFFERING  {CONCLUDED).    55 

sented  here,  yet  it  is  not  the  chief  thing.  The  principal 
thing,  in  the  burnt-offering,  was  the  burning,  the 
complete  consumption  of  the  victim  in  the  sacrificial 
fire.  Hence  what  is  represented  chiefly  here,  is  not 
so  much  Christ  representing  His  people  in  atoning 
death,  as  Christ  representing  His  people  in  perfect 
consecration  and  entire  self-surrender  unto  God;  in 
a  word,  in  perfect  obedience. 

Of  these  two  things,  the  atoning  death  and  the 
representative  obedience,  we  think,  and  with  reason, 
much  of  the  former;  but  most  Christians,  though 
without  reason,  think  less  of  the  latter.  And  yet  how 
much  is  made  of  this  aspect  of  our  Lord's  work  in  the 
Gospels !  The  first  words  which  we  hear  from  His 
lips  are  to  this  effect,  when,  at  twelve  years  of  age, 
He  asked  His  mother  (Luke  ii.  49),  "  Wist  ye  not  that 
I  must  be  (lit.)  in  the  things  of  My  Father?"  and 
after  His  official  work  began  in  the  first  cleansing  of 
the  temple,  this  manifestation  of  His  character  was 
such  as  to  remind  His  disciples  that  it  was  written, 
^*  The  zeal  of  Thy  house  shall  eat  me  up"; — phraseology 
which  brings  the  burnt-offering  at  once  to  mind.^  And 
His  constant  testimony  concerning  Himself,  to  which 
His  whole  life  bare  witness,  was  in  such  words  as 
these :  '^  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  My  own 
will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me."  In  particular, 
He  especially  regarded  His  atoning  work  in  this  aspect. 
In  the  parable  of  the  Good  Shepherd  (John  x.  1-18), 
for  example,  after  telling  us  that  because  of  His  laying 
down  His  life  for  the   sheep   the    Father  loved  Him, 

*  See  Psalm  Ixix.  9,  and  compare  in  the  Hebrew  such  expressions 
as,  "  the  fire  hath  consumed  the  burnt-offering ;  "  and  Deut.  iv.  24, 
"thy  God  is  a  devouring  fire,"  etc.,  in  all  which  the  verb  signifying 
"to  eat"  is  idiomatically  used  of  fire. 


56  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

and  that  to  this  end  He  had  received  from  the  Father 
authority  to  lay  down  His  life  for  the  sheep,  He  then 
adds  as  the  reason  of  this  :  "  This  commandment  have 
I  received  from  My  Father."     And  so  elsewhere  (John 
xii.  49,  50)  He  says  of  all   His  words,  as  of  all   His 
works :  "  The  Father  hath  given  Me  a  commandment, 
what   I    should  say,   and  what    I   should  speak ;  .  .  . 
the  things  therefore  which  I  speak,  even  as  the  Father 
hath  said  unto  Me,  so  I  speak."     And  when  at  last  His 
earthly  work  approaches  its  close,  and  we  see  Him  in 
the  agony  of  Gethsemane,  there  He  appears,  above  all, 
as  the  perfectly  consecrated  One,  offering  Himself,  body, 
soul,  and  spirit,  as  a  whole  burnt-offering  unto  God, 
in  those  never-to-be-forgotten  words  (Matt.  xxvi.  39), 
**  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  away  from 
Me ;    nevertheless,   not  as  I  will,  but  as  Thou  wilt." 
And,  if  any  more  proof  were  needed,  we  have  it  in 
that  inspired  exposition  (Heb.  x.  5-10)  of  Psalm  xl. 
6-8)  wherein  it  is  taught  that  this  perfect  obedience 
of  Christ,  in  full  consecration,   was  indeed   the  very 
thing  which  the  Holy  Ghost  foresignified  in  the  whole 
burnt-offerings  of  the  law  :    "  When  He  cometh  into 
the    world.    He    saith.    Sacrifice    and    offering    Thou 
wouldest  not,  but  a  body  didst  Thou  prepare  for  Me ; 
in  whole   burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices  for   sin  Thou 
hadst  no  pleasure  :   then   said  I,  Lo,   I  am  come  (in 
the  roll  of  the  book  it  is  written  of  Me)  to  do  Thy  will, 
O  God." 

Thus  the  burnt-offering  brings  before  us  in  type,  for 
our  faith,  Christ  as  our  Saviour  in  virtue  of  His  being 
the  One  wholly  surrendered  to  the  will  of  the  Father. 
Nor  does  this  exclude,  but  rather  defines,  the  concep- 
tion of  Christ  as  our  substitute  and  representative. 
For  He  said  that  it  was  for  our  sakes  that  He  "  sancti- 


i.6-9, 12, 13,  170    THE  BURNT-OFFERING  {CONCLUDED).    57 

fied/'  or  ''consecrated"  Himself  (John  xvii.  19);  and 
while  the  New  Testament  represents  Him  as  saving  us 
by  His  death  as  an  expiation  for  sin,  it  no  less  explicitly 
holds  Him  forth  to  us  as  having  obeyed  in  our  behalf, 
declaring  (Rom.  v.  19)  that  it  is  "  by  the  obedience  of 
the  One  Man  "  that  '*  many  are  made  righteous."  And, 
elsewhere,  the  same  Apostle  represents  the  incomparable 
moral  value  of  the  atoning  death  of  the  cross  as  con- 
sisting precisely  in  this  fact,  that  it  was  a  supreme  act 
of  self-renouncing  obedience,  as  it  is  written  (Phil.  ii. 
6-9)  :  "  Being  in  the  form  of  God,  He  yet  counted  it 
not  a  prize  to  be  on  an  equality  with  God,  but  emptied 
Himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being  made 
in  the  likeness  of  men ;  .  .  .  becoming  obedient  even 
unto  death,  yea,  the  death  of  the  cross.  Wherefore 
also  God  highly  exalted  Him,  and  gave  unto  Him  the 
name  which  is  above  every  name." 

And  so  the  burnt-offering  teaches  us  to  remember 
that  Christ  has  not  only  died  for  our  sins,  but  has  also 
consecrated  Himself  for  us  to  God  in  full  self-surrender 
in  our  behalf.  We  are  therefore  to  plead  not  only  His 
atoning  death,  but  also  the  transcendent  merit  of  His 
life  of  full  consecration  to  the  Father's  will.  To  this, 
the  words,  three  times  repeated  concerning  the  burnt- 
offering  (vv.  9,  13,  17),  in  this  chapter,  blessedly 
apply :  it  is  "  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet 
savour,"  a  fragrant  odour,  ''  unto  the  Lord."  That  is, 
this  full  self-surrender  of  the  holy  Son  of  God  unto  the 
Father  is  exceedingly  delightful  and  acceptable  unto 
God.  And  for  this  reason  it  is  for  us  an  ever-pre- 
vailing argument  for  our  own  acceptance,  and  for  the 
gracious  bestowment  for  Christ's  sake  of  all  that  there 
is  in  Him  for  us. 

Only  let  us  ever  remember  that  we  cannot  argue,  as 


58  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

in  the  case  of  the  atoning  death,  that  as  Christ  died 
that  we  might  not  die,  so  He  offered  Himself  in  full 
consecration  unto  God,  that  we  might  thus  be  released 
from  this  obligation.  Here  the  exact  opposite  is  the 
truth.  For  Christ  Himself  said  in  His  memorable 
prayer,  just  before  His  offering  of  Himself  to  death, 
"  For  their  sakes  I  sanctify  (marg.  ''  consecrate")  My- 
self, that  they  also  might  be  sanctified  in  truths  And 
thus  is  brought  before  us  the  thought,  that  if  the  sin- 
offering  emphasised,  as  we  shall  see,  the  substitutionary 
death  of  Christ,  whereby  He  became  our  righteousness, 
the  burnt-offering,  as  distinctively,  brings  before  us 
Christ  as  our  sanctification,  offering  Himself  without 
spot,  a  whole  burnt-offering  to  God.  And  as  by  that 
one  life  of  sinless  obedience  to  the  will  of  the  Father 
He  procured  our  salvation  by  His  merit,  so  in  this 
respect  He  has  also  become  our  one  perfect  Example  of 
what  consecration  to  God  really  is.  A  thought  this  is 
which,  with  evident  allusion  to  the  burnt-oflfering,  the 
Apostle  Paul  brings  before  us,  charging  us  (Eph.  v.  2) 
that  we  "  walk  in  love,  as  Christ  also  loved  us,  and 
gave  Himself  for  us,  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God 
for  an  odour  of  a  sweet  smell." 

And  the  law  further  suggests  that  no  extreme  of 
spiritual  need  can  debar  any  one  from  availing  Himself 
of  our  great  Burnt-sacrifice.  A  burnt-oflfering  was  to 
be  received  even  from  one  who  was  so  poor  that  he 
could  bring  but  a  turtle-dove  or  a  young  pigeon  (ver. 
14).  One  might,  at  first  thought,  not  unnaturally  say : 
Surely  there  can  be  nothing  in  this  to  point  to  Christ ; 
for  the  true  Sacrifice  is  not  many,  but  one  and  only. 
And  yet  the  very  fact  of  this  difference  allowed  in  the 
typical  victims,  when  the  reason  of  the  allowance  is 
remembered,  suggests   the   most  precious   truth  con- 


vi.8-i3.]     THE  BURNT-OFFERING  {CONCLUDED).  59 

cerning  Christ,  that  no  spiritual  poverty  of  the  sinner 
need  exclude  him  from  the  full  benefit  of  Christ's 
saving  work.  Provision  is  made  in  Him  for  all  those 
who,  most  truly  and  with  most  reason,  feel  themselves 
to  be  poor  and  in  need  of  all  things.  Christ,  as  our 
sanctification,  is  for  all  who  will  make  use  of  Him ;  for 
all  who,  feeling  most  deeply  and  painfully  their  own 
failure  in  full  consecration,  would  take  Him,  as  not  only 
their  sin-offering,  but  also  their  burnt-offering,  both 
their  example  and  their  strength,  unto  perfect  self- 
surrender  unto  God.  We  may  well  here  recall  to  mind 
the  exhortation  of  the  Apostle  to  Christian  believers, 
expressed  in  language  which  at  once  reminds  us  of  the 
burnt-offering  (Rom.  xii.  i)  :  "I  beseech  you,  brethren, 
by  the  mercies  of  God,  to  present  your  bodies  a  living 
sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God,  which  is  your  reason- 
able service." 

The  Continual  Burnt-offering. 

vi.  8-13. 

"And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Command  Aaron  and  his 
sons,  saying,  This  is  the  law  of  the  burnt  offering :  the  burnt  offering 
shall  be  on  the  hearth  upon  the  altar  all  night  unto  the  morning ;  and 
the  fire  of  the  altar  shall  be  kept  burning  thereon.  And  the  priest 
shall  put  on  his  linen  garment,  and  his  linen  breeches  shall  he  put 
upon  his  flesh ;  and  he  shall  take  up  the  ashes  whereto  the  fire  hath 
consumed  the  burnt  offering  on  the  altar,  and  he  shall  put  them  be- 
side the  altar.  And  he  shall  put  off  his  garments,  and  put  on  other 
garments,  and  carry  forth  the  ashes  without  the  camp  unto  a  clean 
place.  And  the  fire  upon  the  altar  shall  be  kept  burning  thereon,  it 
shall  not  go  out ;  and  the  priest  shall  burn  wood  on  it  every  morning : 
and  he  shall  lay  the  burnt  offering  in  order  upon  it,  and  shall  burn 
thereon  the  fat  of  the  peace  offerings.  Fire  shall  be  kept  burning 
upon  the  altar  continually ;  it  shall  not  go  out." 

In  chap.  vi.  8-13  we  have  a  "  law  of  the  burnt- 
ofFering  "  specially  addressed  to  "  Aaron  and  his  sons," 


6o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

and   designed    to   secure   that   the  fire  of  the  burnt- 
offering  should  be  continually  ascending  unto  God.     In 
chap.   i.   we   have    the   law   regarding   burnt-offerings 
brought  by  the  individual  Israelite.     But  besides  these 
it  was  ordered,  Exod.  xxix.  38-46,  that  every  morning 
and  evening  the  priest  should  offer  a  lamb  as  a  burnt- 
offering   for    the    whole    people, — an    offering    which 
primarily  symbolised  the  constant  renewal  of  Israel's 
consecration  as  '*  a  kingdom  of  priests"  unto  the  Lord. 
It  is  to  this,  the  daily  burnt-offering,  that  this  supple- 
mentary law  of  chap.  vi.  refers.     All  the  regulations 
are  intended  to  provide  for  the  uninterrupted  mainte- 
nance of  this  sacrificial  fire  ;  first,  by  the  regular  removal 
of  the  ashes  which  would  else  cover  and  smother  the 
fire;   and,  secondly,  by  the  supply  of  fuel.     The  re- 
moval of  the  ashes  from  the  fire  is  a  priestly  function  ; 
hence  it  was  ordained  that  the  priest  for  this  service 
put  on  his  robes  of  office,  *'  his  linen  garment  and  his 
linen  breeches,"  and  then  take  up  the  ashes  from  the 
altar,  and  lay  them  by  the  side  of  the  altar.     But  as 
from    time   to  time  it  would  be  necessary  to  remove 
them  from  this  place  quite  without  the  tent,  it   was 
ordered  that  he  should  carry  them  forth  ^*  without  the 
camp    unto  a  clean   place,"    that    the    sanctity   of  all 
connected  with  Jehovah's  worship  might  never  be  lost 
sight   of;  though,    as   it   was   forbidden    to  wear  the 
priestly  garments  except  within  the  tent  of  meeting, 
the   priest,   when    this   service   was   performed,   must 
"put  on  other  garments,"  his  ordinary,  unofficial  robes. 
The   ashes    being  thus  removed  from  the  altar  each 
morning,  then  the  wood  was  put  on,  and  the  parts  of 
the  lamb  laid  in  order  upon  it  to  be  perfectly  consumed. 
And  whenever  during  the  day  any  one  might  bring  a 
peace-offering  unto  the  Lord,  on  this  ever-burning  fire 


vi.8-i3.]    THE  BURNT-OFFERING  {CONCLUDED).  6i 

the  priest  was  to  place  also  the  fat,  the  richest  part,  of 
the  offering,  and  with  it  also  the  various  individual 
burnt-offerings  and  meal-offerings  of  each  day.  And 
thus  it  was  arranged  by  the  law  that,  all  day  long,  and 
all  night  long,  the  smoke  of  the  burnt-offering  should 
be  continually  ascending  unto  the  Lord. 

The  significance  of  this  can  hardly  be  missed.  By 
this  supplemental  law  which  thus  provided  for  *^a 
continual  burnt-offering"  to  the  Lord,  it  was  first  of 
all  signified  to  Israel,  and  to  us,  that  the  consecration 
which  the  Lord  so  desires  and  requires  from  His  people 
is  not  occasional,  but  continuous.  As  the  priest, 
representing  the  nation,  morning  by  morning  cleared 
away  the  ashes  which  had  else  covered  the  flame  and 
caused  it  to  burn  dull,  and  both  morning  by  morning 
and  evening  by  evening,  laid  a  new  victim  on  the  altar, 
so  will  God  have  us  do.  Our  self-consecration  is  not 
to  be  occasional,  but  continual  and  habitual.  Each 
morning  we  should  imitate  the  priest  of  old,  in  putting 
away  all  that  might  dull  the  flame  of  our  devotion,  and, 
morning  by  morning,  when  we  arise,  and  evening  by 
evening,  when  we  retire,  by  a  solemn  act  of  self-con- 
secration give  ourselves  anew  unto  the  Lord.  So 
shall  the  word  in  substance,  thrice  repeated,  be  fulfilled 
in  us  in  its  deepest,  truest  sense  :  **  The  fire  shall  be 
kept  burning  on  the  altar  continually ;  it  shall  not  go 
out  (vv.  9,  12,  13). 

But  we  must  not  forget  that  in  this  part  of  the  law, 
as  in  all  else,  we  are  pointed  to  Christ.  This  ordinance 
of  the  continual  burnt-offering  reminds  us  that  Christ, 
as  our  burnt-offering,  continually  offers  Himself  to  God 
in  self-consecration  in  our  behalf  Very  significant  it 
is  that  the  burnt-offering  stands  in  contrast  in  this 
respect  with  the  sin-offering.     We  never  read  of  a  con- 


62  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

tinual  sin-offering;  even  the  great  annual  sin-offering 
of  the  day  of  atonement,  which,  like  the  daily  burnt- 
offering,  had  reference  to  the  nation  at  large,  was  soon 
finished,  and  once  for  all.  And  it  was  so  with  reason ; 
for  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  our  Lord's  offering  of 
Himself  for  sin  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice  was  not  and 
could  not  be  a  continuous  act.  But  with  His  pre- 
sentation of  Himself  unto  God  in  full  consecration 
of  His  person  as  our  Burnt-offering,  it  is  different. 
Throughout  the  days  of  His  humiliation  this  self- 
offering  of  Himself  to  God  continued ;  nor,  indeed, 
can  we  say  that  it  has  yet  ceased,  or  ever  can  cease. 
For  still,  as  the  High  Priest  of  the  heavenly  sanctuary. 
He  continually  offers  Himself  as  our  Burnt-offering  in 
constantly  renewed  and  constantly  continued  devote- 
ment  of  Himself  to  the  Father  to  do  His  will. 

In  this  ordinance  of  the  daily  burnt-offering,  ever 
ascending  in  the  fire  that  never  went  out,  the  idea  of 
the  burnt-sacrifice  reaches  its  fullest  expression,  the 
type  its  most  perfect  development.  And  thus  the  law 
of  the  burnt-offering  leaves  us  in  the  presence  of  this 
holy  vision :  the  greater  than  Aaron,  in  the  heavenly 
place  as  our  great  Representative  and  Mediator,  morn- 
ing by  morning,  evening  by  evening,  offering  Himself 
unto  the  Father  in  the  full  self-devotement  of  His  risen 
life  unto  God,  as  our  "continual  burnt-offering."  In 
this,  let  us  rejoice  and  be  at  peace. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE  MEAL-OFFERIJSlG. 
Lev.  ii.  1-16;  vi.  14-23. 

THE  word  which  in  the  original  uniformly  stands 
for  the  EngHsh  "  meal-offering "  (A.V.  ^'  meat- 
offering," i.e.,  ''food-offering")  primarily  means  simply 
^*  a  present,"  and  is  often  properly  so  translated  in  the 
Old  Testament.  It  is,  for  example,  the  word  which  is 
used  (Gen.  xxxii.  13)  when  we  are  told  how  Jacob 
sent  a  present  to  Esau  his  brother;  or,  later,  of  the 
gift  sent  by  Israel  to  his  son  Joseph  in  Egypt  (Gen. 
xliii.  11);  and,  again  (2  Sam.  viii.  2),  of  the  gifts  sent 
by  the  Moabites  to  David.  Whenever  thus  used  of 
gifts  to  men,  it  will  be  found  that  it  suggests  a  recog- 
nition of  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  person  to 
whom  the  present  is  made,  and,  in  many  cases,  a  desire 
also  to  procure  thereby  his  favour. 

In  the  great  majority  of  cases,  however,  the  word 
is  used  of  offerings  to  God,  and  in  this  use  one  or  both 
of  these  ideas  can  easily  be  traced.  In  Gen.  iv.  4,  5, 
in  the  account  of  the  offerings  of  Cain  and  Abel,  the 
word  is  appHed  both  to  the  bloody  and  the  unbloody 
offering ;  but  in  the  Levitical  law,  it  is  only  applied  to 
the  latter.  We  thus  find  the  fundamental  idea  of  the 
meal-offering  to  be  this :  it  was  a  gift  brought  by  the 
worshipper  to  God,  in  token  of  his  recognition  of  His 


64  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


supreme  authority,  and  as  an  expression  of  desire  for 
His  favour  and  blessing. 

But  although  the  meal-offering,  like  the  burnt-offering, 
was  an  offering  made  to  God  by  fire,  the  differences 
between  them  were  many  and  significant.  In  the  burnt- 
offering,  it  was  always  a  life  that  was  given  to  God  ;  in 
the  meal-offering,  it  was  never  a  life,  but  always  the 
products  of  the  soil.  In  the  burnt-offering,  again,  the 
offerer  always  set  apart  the  offering  by  the  laying  on 
of  the  hand,  signifying  thus,  as  we  have  seen,  a  transfer 
of  obligation  to  death  for  sin  ;  thus  connecting  with  the 
offering,  in  addition  to  the  idea  of  a  gift  to  God,  that 
of  expiation  for  sin,  as  preliminary  to  the  offering  by 
fire.  In  the  meal-offering,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
was  no  laying  on  of  the  hand,  as  there  was  no  shedding 
of  blood,  so  that  the  idea  of  expiation  for  sin  is  in  no 
way  symbolised.  The  conception  of  a  gift  to  God, 
which,  though  dominant  in  the  burnt-offering,  is  not 
in  that  the  only  thing  symbolised,  in  the  meal-offering 
becomes  the  only  thought  the  offering  expresses. 

It  is  further  to  be  noted  that  not  only  must  the 
meal-offering  consist  of  the  products  of  the  soil,  but 
of  such  alone  as  grow,  not  spontaneously,  but  bj 
cultivation,  and  thus  represent  the  result  of  man's 
labour.  Not  only  so,  but  this  last  thought  is  the  more 
emphasised,  that  the  grain  of  the  offering  was  not  to 
be  presented  to  the  Lord  in  its  natural  condition  as 
harvested,  but  only  when,  by  grinding,  sifting,  and 
often,  in  addition,  by  cooking  in  various  ways,  it  has 
been  more  or  less  fully  prepared  to  become  the  food 
of  man.  In  any  case,  it  must,  at  least,  be  parched,  as 
in  the  variety  of  the  offering  which  is  last  mentioned 
in  the  chapter  (vv.  14-16). 

With  these  fundamental  facts  before  us,  we  can  now 


ii.i-i6.]  THE  MEAL-OFFERING.  65 

see  what  must  have  been  the  primary  and  distinctive 
significance  of  the  meal-offering,  considered  as  an  act 
of  worship.  As  the  burnt-offering  represented  the 
consecration  of  the  life,  the  person,  to  God,  so  the 
meal-offering  represented  the  consecration  of  the  fruit 
of  his  labours. 

If  it  be  asked,  why  it  was  that  when  man's  labours 
are  so  manifold,  and  their  results  so  diverse,  the  product 
of  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  should  be  alone  selected 
for  this  purpose,  for  this,  several  reasons  may  be 
given.  In  the  first  place,  of  all  the  occupations  of 
man,  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  is  that  of  by  far  the 
greatest  number,  and  so,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
must  continue  to  be;  for  the  sustenance  of  man,  so 
far  as  he  is  at  all  above  the  savage  condition,  comes, 
in  the  last  analysis,  from  the  soil.  Then,  in  particular, 
the  Israelites  of  those  days  of  Moses  were  about  to 
become  an  agricultural  nation.  Most  natural  and  suit- 
able, then,  it  was  that  the  fruit  of  the  activities  of  such 
a  people  should  be  symbolised  by  the  product  of  their 
fields.  And  since  even  those  who  gained  their  living 
in  other  ways  than  by  the  cultivation  of  the  ground, 
must  needs  purchase  with  their  earnings  grain  and  oil, 
the  meal-offering  would,  no  less  for  them  than  for 
others,  represent  the  consecration  to  God  of  the  fruit 
of  their  labour. 

The  meal-offering  is  no  longer  an  ordinance  of 
worship,  but  the  duty  which  it  signified  remains  in 
full  obligation  still.  Not  only,  in  general,  are  we  to 
surrender  our  persons  without  reserve  to  the  Lord, 
as  in  the  burnt-offering,  but  unto  Him  must  also  be 
consecrated  all  our  works. 

This  is  true,  first  of  all,  regarding  our  religious 
service.     Each  of  us  is  sent  into  the  world  to  do  a 

5 


66  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


certain  spiritual  work  among  our  fellow-men.      This 
work   and  all  the   result  of  it  is  to  be  offered  as  a 
holy  meal-offering  to  the  Lord.     A  German  writer  has 
beautifully  set  forth  this  significance  of  the  meal-offer- 
ing as  regards  Israel.     '*  Israel's  bodily  calling  was  the 
cultivation  of  the   ground  in  the  land  given    him   by 
Jehovah.     The  fruit  of  his  calling,  under  the  Divine 
blessing,  was  corn  and  wine,  his  bodily  food,  which 
nourished  and  sustained  his  bodily  life.     Israel's  spiri- 
tual calling  was  to  work  in  the  field  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  in  the  vineyard  of  his  Lord ;  this  work  was 
Israel's  covenant  obligation.     Of  this,  the  fruit  was  the 
spiritual  bread,  the  spiritual  nourishment,  which  should 
sustain  and  develop  his  spiritual  life."  ^     And  the  calling 
of  the  spiritual  Israel,  which  is  the  Church,  is  still  the 
same,  to  labour  in  the  field  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which 
is  the  world  of  men  ;  and  the  result  of  this  work  is  still 
the  same,  namely,  with  the  Divine  blessing,  spiritual 
fruit,  sustaining  and  developing  the  spiritual  life  of  men. 
And  in  the  meal-offering  we  are  reminded  that  the  fruit 
of  all  our  spiritual  labours  is  to  be  offered  to  the  Lord. 
The  reminder  might  seem    unneedful,  as  indeed  it 
ought  to  be ;  but  it  is  not.     For  it  is  sadly  possible  to 
call  Christ  "  Lord,"  and,  labouring  in  His  field,  do  in 
His  name  many  wonderful  works,  yet  not  really  unto 
Him.     A  minister  of  the  Word  may  with  steady  labour 
drive  the  ploughshare  of  the  law,  and  sow  continually 
the  undoubted  seed  of  the  Word  in  the  Master's  field ; 
and  the  apparent  result  of  his  work  may  be  large,  and 
even  real,  in  the  conversion  of  men  to  God,  and  a  great 
increase  of  Christian  zeal  and  activity.      And  yet   it 
is  quite  possible  that  a  man  do  this,  and  still  do  it 

*  Kurtz,  "  Der  Alt-testamentliche  Opfercultus,"  p.  243. 


ii.  i-i6.]  THE  MEAL-OFFERING.  67 

for  himself,  and  not  for  the  Lord ;  and  when  success 
comes,  begin  to  rejoice  in  his  evident  skill  as  a  spiritual 
husbandman,  and  in  the  praise  of  man  which  this  brings 
him;  and  so,  while  thus  rejoicing  in  the  fruit  of  his 
labours,  neglect  to  bring  of  this  good  corn  and  wine 
which  he  has  raised  for  a  daily  meal-offering  in  conse- 
cration to  the  Lord.  Most  sad  is  this,  and  humiliating, 
and  yet  sometimes  it  so  comes  to  pass. 

And  so,  indeed,  it  may  be  in  every  department  of 
religious  activity.  The  present  age  is  without  its  like 
in  the  wonderful  variety  of  its  enterprise  in  matters 
benevolent  and  religious.  On  every  side  we  see  an 
ever-increasing  army  of  labourers  driving  their  various 
work  in  the  field  of  the  world.  City  Missions  of  every 
variety.  Poor  Committees  with  their  free  lodgings  and 
soup-kitchens.  Young  Men's  Christian  Associations, 
Blue  Ribbon  Societies,  the  White  Cross  Army  and  the 
Red  Cross  Army,  Hospital  Work,  Prison  Reform,  and 
so  on.; — there  is  no  enumerating  all  the  diverse  im- 
proved methods  of  spiritual  husbandry  around  us,  nor 
can  any  one  rightly  depreciate  the  intrinsic  excellence 
of  all  this,  or  make  light  of  the  work  or  of  its  good 
results.  But  for  all  this,  there  are  signs  that  many 
need  to  be  reminded  that  all  such  labour  in  God's 
field,  however  God  may  graciously  make  use  of  it,  is 
not  necessarily  labour  for  God ;  that  labour  for  the 
good  of  men  is  not  therefore  of  necessity  labour  con- 
secrated to  the  Lord.  For  can  we  believe  that  from 
all  this  the  meal-offering  is  always  brought  to  Him  ? 
The  ordinance  of  this  offering  needs  to  be  remembered 
by  us  all  in  connection  with  these  things.  The  fruit  of 
all  these  our  labours  must  be  offered  daily  in  solemn 
consecration  to  the  Lord. 

But  the  teaching  of  the  meal-offering  reaches  further 


68  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

than  to  what  we  call  religious  labours.  For  in  that  it 
was  appointed  that  the  offering  should  consist  of  man's 
daily  food,  Israel  was  reminded  that  God's  claim  for 
full  consecration  of  all  our  activities  covers  everything, 
even  to  the  very  food  we  eat.  There  are  many  who 
consecrate,  or  think  they  consecrate,  their  religious 
activities ;  but  seem  never  to  have  understood  that 
the  consecration  of  the  true  Israelite  must  cover  the 
secular  hfe  as  well, — the  labour  of  the  hand  in  the  field, 
in  the  shop,  the  transactions  of  the  office  or  on  'Change, 
and  all  their  results,  as  also  the  recreations  which  we 
are  able  to  command,  the  very  food  and  drink  which 
we  use, — in  a  word,  all  the  results  and  products  of 
our  labours,  even  in  secular  things.  And  to  bring  this 
idea  vividly  before  Israel,  it  was  ordered  that  the  meal- 
oiTering  should  consist  of  food,  as  the  most  common 
and  universal  visible  expression  of  the  fruit  of  man's 
secular  activities.  The  New  Testament  has  the  same 
thought  (i  Cor.  x.  31):  "Whether  ye  eat  or  drink,  or 
whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God." 

And  the  offering  was  not  to  consist  of  any  food 
which  one  might  clioose  to  bring,  but  of  corn  and  oil, 
variously  prepared.  Not  to  speak  yet  of  any  deeper 
reason  for  this  selection,  there  is  one  which  lies  quite 
on  the  surface.  For  these  were  the  most  common  and 
universal  articles  of  the  food  of  the  people.  There  were 
articles  of  food,  then  as  now,  which  were  only  to  be  seen 
on  the  tables  of  the  rich ;  but  grain,  in  some  form,  was 
and  is  a  necessity  for  all.  So  also  the  oil,  which  was 
that  of  the  oHve,  was  something  which  in  that  part  of 
the  world,  all,  the  poor  no  less  than  the  rich,  were 
wont  to  use  continually  in  the  preparation  of  their 
food ;  even  as  it  is  used  to-day  in  Syria,  Italy,  and 
other    countries    where   the   olive   grows   abundantly. 


ii.  i-i6.]  THE  MEAL-OFFERING,  69 

Hence  it  appears  that  that  was  chosen  for  the  offering 
which  all,  the  richest  and  the  poorest  alike,  would  be 
sure  to  have ;  with  the  evident  intent,  that  no  one 
might  be  able  to  plead  poverty  as  an  excuse  for  bring- 
ing no  meal-oflfering  to  the  Lord. 

Thus,  if  this  ordinance  of  the  meal-offering  taught 
that  God's  claim  for  consecration  covers  all  our  activities 
and  all  their  result,  even  to  the  very  food  that  we  eat, 
it  teaches  also  that  this  claim  for  consecration  covers 
all  persons.  From  the  statesman  who  administers  the 
affairs  of  an  Empire  to  the  day-labourer  in  the  shop, 
or  mill,  or  field,  all  alike  are  hereby  reminded  that  the 
Lord  requires  that  the  work  of  every  one  shall  be 
brought  and  offered  to  Him  in  holy  consecration. 

And  there  was  a  further  prescription,  although  not 
mentioned  here  in  so  many  words.  In  some  offerings, 
barley-meal  was  ordered,  but  for  this  offering  the  grain 
presented,  whether  parched,  in  the  ear,  or  ground  into 
meal,  must  be  only  wheat.  The  reason  for  this,  and 
the  lesson  which  it  teaches,  are  plain.  For  wheat,  in 
Israel,  as  still  in  most  lands,  was  the  best  and  most 
valued  of  the  grains.  Israel  must  not  only  offer  unto 
God  of  the  fruit  of  their  labour,  but  the  best  result  of 
their  labours.  Not  only  so,  but  when  the  offering  was 
in  the  form  of  meal,  cooked  or  uncooked,  the  best  and 
finest  must  be  presented.  That,  in  other  words,  must 
be  offered  which  represented  the  most  of  care  and 
labour  in  its  preparation,  or  the  equivalent  of  this 
in  purchase  price.  Which  emphasises,  in  a  slightly 
different  form,  the  same  lesson  as  the  foregoing.  Out 
of  the  fruit  of  our  several  labours  and  occupations  we 
are  to  set  apart  especially  for  God,  not  only  that  which 
is  best  in  itself,  the  finest  of  the  wheat,  but  that  which 
has  cost  us  the  most  labour.     David  finely  represented 


70  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

this  thought  of  the  meal-offering  when  he  said,  con- 
cerning the  cattle  for  his  burnt-offerings,  which  Araunah 
the  Jebusite  would  have  him  accept  without  price :  "  I 
will  not  offer  unto  the  Lord  my  God  of  that  which  doth 
cost  me  nothing." 

But  in  the  meal-offering  it  was  not  the  whole  product 
of  his  labour  that  the  Israelite  was  directed  to  bring, 
but  only  a  small  part.  How  could  the  consecration  of 
this  small  part  represent  the  consecration  of  all  ?  The 
answer  to  this  question  is  given  by  the  Apostle  Paul, 
who  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  Levitical 
symbolism  it  was  ordained  that  Ihe  consecration  of  a 
part  should  signify  the  consecration  of  the  whole.  For 
he  writes  (Rom.  xi.  i6),  '^  If  the  first-fruit  is  holy,  then 
the  lump" — the  whole  from  which  the  first-fruit  is 
taken — *'  is  also  holy;  "  that  is,  the  consecration  of  a  part 
signifies  and  symbolically  expresses  the  consecration  of 
the  whole  from  which  that  part  is  taken.  The  idea  is 
well  illustrated  by  a  custom  in  India,  according  to  which, 
when  one  visits  a  man  of  distinction,  he  will  offer  the 
guest  a  silver  coin  ;  an  act  of  social  etiquette  which  is 
intended  to  express  the  thought  that  all  he  has  is  at 
the  service  of  the  guest,  and  is  therewith  offered  for 
his  use.  And  so  in  the  meal-offering.  By  offering  to 
God,  in  this  formal  way,  a  part  of  the  product  of  his 
labour,  the  Israelite  expressed  a  recognition  of  His 
claim  upon  the  whole,  and  professed  a  readiness  to 
place,  not  this  part  merely,  but  the  whole,  at  God's 
service. 

But  in  the  selection  of  the  materials,  we  are  pointed 
toward  a  deeper  symbolism,  by  the  injunction  that  in 
certain  cases,  at  least,  frankincense  should  be  added  to 
the  offering.  But  this  was  not  of  man's  food,  neither 
was  it,  like  the  meal,  and  cakes,  and  oil,  a  product  of 


ii.  i-i6.]  THE  MEAL-OFFERING.  71 

man's  labour.  Its  effect,  naturally,  was  to  give  a  grate- 
ful perfume  to  the  sacrifice,  that  it  might  be,  even  in 
a  physical  sense,  **  an  odour  of  a  sweet  smell."  The 
symbolical  meaning  of  incense,  in  which  the  frankin- 
cense was  a  chief  ingredient,  is  very  clearly  intimated 
in  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  suggested  in  David's  prayer 
(Psalm  cxli.  2) :  *^  Let  my  prayer  be  set  forth  as 
incense ;  the  lifting  up  of  my  hands,  like  the  evening 
oblation."  So,  in  Luke  i.  lO,  we  read  of  the  whole 
multitude  of  the  people  praying  without  the  sanctuary, 
while  the  priest  Zacharias  was  offering  incense  within. 
And,  finally,  in  the  Apocalypse,  this  is  expressly 
declared  to  be  the  symbolical  significance  of  incense ; 
for  we  read  (v.  8),  that  the  four-and-twenty  elders 
'*  fell  down  before  the  Lamb,  having  .  .  .  golden  bowls 
full  of  incense,  which  are  the  prayers  of  the  saints." 
So  then,  without  doubt,  we  must  understand  it  here. 
In  that  frankincense  was  to  be  added  to  the  meal- 
offering,  it  is  signified  that  this  offering  of  the  fruit  of 
our  labours  to  the  Lord  must  ever  be  accompanied  by 
prayer;  and,  further,  that  our  prayers,  thus  offered  in 
this  daily  consecration,  are  most  pleasing  to  the  Lord, 
even  as  the  fragrance  of  sweet  incense  unto  man. 

But  if  the  frankincense,  in  itself,  had  thus  a  sym- 
bolical meaning,  it  is  not  unnatural  to  infer  the  same 
also  with  regard  to  other  elements  of  the  sacrifice. 
Nor  is  it,  in  view  of  the  nature  of  the  symbols,  hard 
to  discover  what  that  should  be. 

For  inasmuch  as  that  product  of  labour  is  selected 
for  the  offering,  which  is  the  food  by  which  men  live, 
we  are  reminded  that  this  is  to  be  the  final  aspect  under 
which  all  the  fruit  of  our  labours  is  to  be  regarded ; 
namely,  as  furnishing  and  supplying  for  the  need  of 
the  many  that  which  shall  be  bread  to  the  soul.     In 


72  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

the  highest  sense,  indeed,  this  can  only  be  said  of 
Him  who  by  His  work  became  the  Bread  of  Life  for  the 
world,  who  was  at  once  "  the  Sower  "  and  '*  the  Corn 
of  Wheat "  cast  into  the  ground ;  and  yet,  in  a  lower 
sense,  it  is  true  that  the  work  of  feeding  the  multitudes 
with  the  bread  of  life  is  the  work  of  us  all ;  and  that 
in  all  our  labours  and  engagements  we  are  to  keep  this 
in  mind  as  our  supreme  earthly  object.  Just  as  the 
products  of  human  labour  are  most  diverse,  and  yet 
all  are  capable  of  being  exchanged  in  the  market  for 
bread  for  the  hungry,  so  are  we  to  use  all  the  products 
of  our  labour  with  this  end  in  view,  that  they  may  be 
offered  to  the  Lord  as  cakes  of  fine  meal  for  the  spiritual 
sustenance  of  man. 

And  the  oil,  too,  which  entered  into  every  form  of 
the  meal-offering,  has  in  Holy  Scripture  a  constant 
and  invariable  symbolical  meaning.  It  is  the  uniform 
symbol  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God.  Isaiah  Ixi.  i  is 
decisive  on  this  point,  where  in  prophecy  the  Messiah 
speaks  thus :  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon 
me ;  because  the  Lord  God  hath  anointed  me  to  preach 
good  tidings."  Quite  in  accord  with  this,  we  find  that 
when  Jesus  reached  thirty  years  of  age, — the  time  for 
beginning  priestly  service, — He  was  set  apart  for  His 
work,  not  as  the  Levitical  priests,  by  anointing  with 
symbolical  oil,  but  by  the  anointing  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  descending  on  Him  at  His  baptism.  So,  also, 
in  the  Apocalypse,  the  Church  is  symbolised  by  seven 
golden  candlesticks,  or  lamp-stands,  supplied  with  oil 
after  the  manner  of  that  in  the  temple,  reminding  us 
that  as  the  lamp  can  give  light  only  as  supplied  with 
oil,  so,  if  the  Church  is  to  be  a  light  in  the  world,  she 
must  be  continually  supplied  with  the  Spirit  of  God. 
Hence,  the  injunction  that  the  meal  of  the  offering  be 


ii.  i-i6.]  THE  MEAL-OFFERING.  73 

kneaded  with  oil,  and  that,  of  whatever  form  the  offer- 
ing be,  oil  should  be  poured  upon  it,  is  intended, 
according  to  this  usage,  to  teach  us,  that  in  all  work 
which  shall  be  offered  so  as  to  be  acceptable  to  God, 
must  enter,  as  an  inworking  and  abiding  agent,  the 
life-giving  Spirit  of  God. 

It  is  another  direction  as  to  these  meal-offerings,  as 
also  regarding  all  offerings  made  by  fire,  that  into  them 
should  never  enter  leaven  (ver.  ii).  The  symbolical 
significance  of  this  prohibition  is  familiar  to  all.  For 
in  all  leaven  is  a  principle  of  decay  and  corruption, 
which,  except  its  continued  operation  be  arrested 
betimes  in  our  preparation  of  leavened  food,  will  soon 
make  that  in  which  it  works  offensive  to  the  taste. 
Hence,  in  Holy  Scripture,  leaven,  without  a  single 
exception,  is  the  established  symbol  of  spiritual  cor- 
ruption. It  is  this,  both  as  considered  in  itself,  and  in 
virtue  of  its  power  of  self-propagation  in  the  leavened 
mass.  Hence  the  Apostle  Paul,  using  familiar  sym- 
bolism, charged  the  Corinthians  (i  Cor.  v.  7)  that  they 
**  purge  out  from  themselves  the  old  leaven ;  and  that 
they  keep  festival,  not  with  the  leaven  of  malice  and 
wickedness,  but  with  the  unleavened  bread  of  sincerity 
and  truth."  Thus,  in  this  prohibition  is  brought  before 
us  the  lesson,  that  we  take  heed  to  keep  out  of  those 
works  which  we  present  to  God  for  consumption  on 
His  altar  the  leaven  of  wickedness  in  every  form.  The 
prohibition,  in  the  same  connection,  of  honey  (ver.  11) 
rests  upon  the  same  thought ;  namely,  that  honey,  like 
leaven,  tends  to  promote  fermentation  and  decay  in 
that  with  which  it  is  mixed. 

The  Revised  Version — in  this  case  doubtless  to  be 
preferred  to  the  other — brings  out  a  striking  qualifica- 
tion of  this  universal  prohibition  of  leaven  or  honey, 


74  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

in  these  words  (ver.  12)  :  "As  an  oblation  of  first-fruits 
ye  shall  offer  them  unto  the  Lord ;  but  they  shall  not 
come  up  for  a  sweet  savour  on  the  altar." 

Thus,  as  the  prohibition  of  leaven  and  honey  from 
the  meal-offering  burned  by  fire  upon  the  altar  reminds 
us  that  the  Holy  One  demands  absolute  freedom  from 
all  that  is  corrupt  in  the  works  of  His  people ;  on  the 
other  hand,  this  gracious  permission  to  offer  leaven  and 
honey  in  the  first-fruits  (which  were  not  burned  on 
the  altar)  seems  intended  to  remind  us  that,  neverthe- 
less, from  the  Israelite  in  covenant  with  God  through 
atoning  blood,  He  is  yet  graciously  pleased  to  accept 
even  offerings  in  which  sinful  imperfection  is  found, 
so  that  only,  as  in  the  offering  of  first-fruits,  there  be 
,  the  hearty  recognition  of  His  rightful  claim,  before  all 
others,  to  the  first  and  best  we  have. 

In  ver.  1 3  we  have  a  last  requisition  as  to  the  material 
of  the  meal-offering :  "  Every  oblation  of  thy  meal- 
offering  shalt  thou  season  with  salt."  As  leaven  is  a 
principle  of  impermanence  and  decay,  so  salt,  on  the 
contrary,  has  the  power  of  conservation  from  corruption. 
Accordingly,  to  this  day,  among  the  most  diverse  peoples, 
salt  is  the  recognised  symbol  of  incorruption  and  un- 
changing perpetuity.  Among  the  Arabs  of  to-day,  for 
example,  when  a  compact  or  covenant  is  made  between 
different  parties,  it  is  the  custom  that  each  eat  of  salt, 
which  is  passed  around  on  the  blade  of  a  sword  ;  by  which 
act  they  regard  themselves  as  bound  to  be  true,  each 
to  the  other,  even  at  the  peril  of  life.  In  like  manner, 
in  India  and  other  Eastern  countries,  the  usual  word 
for  perfidy  and  breach  of  faith  is,  literally,  "  unfaith- 
fulness to  the  salt ; "  and  a  man  will  say,  '^  Can  you 
distrust  me  ?  Have  1  not  eaten  of  your  salt  ?  "  That 
the  symbol  has  this  recognised  meaning  in  the  meal- 


ii.  i-i6.]  THE  MEAL-OFFERING.  75 


offering  is  plain  from  the  words  which  follow  (ver.  13)  : 
"  Neither  shalt  thou  suffer  the  salt  of  the  covenant  of 
thy  God  to  be  wanting  from  thy  meal-offering."  In 
the  meal-offering,  as  in  all  offerings  made  by  fire,  the 
thought  was  this :  that  Jehovah  and  the  Israelite,  as 
it  were,  partake  of  salt  together,  in  token  of  the  eternal 
permanence  of  the  holy  covenant  of  salvation  into  which 
Israel  has  entered  with  God. 

Herein  we  are  taught,  then,  that  by  the  consecra- 
tion of  our  labours  to  God  we  recognise  the  relation 
between  the  believer  and  his  Lord,  as  not  occasional  and 
temporary,  but  eternal  and  incorruptible.  In  all  our 
consecration  of  our  works  to  God,  we  are  to  keep  this 
thought  in  mind :  ^*  I  am  a  man  with  whom  God  has 
entered  into  an  everlasting  covenant,  *  a  covenant  of 
salt' " 

Three  varieties  of  the  meal-offering  were  prescribed : 
the  first  (vv.  1-3),  of  uncooked  meal ;  the  second  (vv. 
4-1 1),  of  the  same  fine  meal  and  oil,  variously  pre- 
pared by  cooking ;  the  third  (vv.  14-16),  of  the  first 
and  best  ears  of  the  new  grain,  simply  parched  in  the 
fire.  If  any  special  significance  is  to  be  recognised  in 
this  variety  of  the  offerings,  it  may  possibly  be  found 
in  this,  that  one  form  might  be  suited  better  than 
another  to  persons  of  different  resources.  It  has  been 
supposed  that  the  different  implements  named — the 
oven,  the  baking-pan  or  plate,  the  frying-pan — repre- 
sent, respectively,  what  different  classes  of  the  people 
might  be  more  or  less  likely  to  have.  This  thought 
more  certainly  appears  in  the  permission  even  of 
parched  grain,  which  then,  as  still  in  the  East,  while 
used  more  or  less  by  all,  was  especially  the  food  of 
the  poorest  of  the  people ;  such  as  might  even  be  too 
poor  to  own  so  much  as  an  oven  or  a  baking-pan. 


76  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

In  any  case,  the  variety  which  was  permitted  teaches 
US;  that  whatever  form  the  product  of  our  labour  may 
take,  as  determined  either  by  our  poverty  or  our  riches, 
or  by  whatever  reason,  God  is  graciously  willing  to  accept 
it,  so  the  oil,  frankincense,  and  salt  be  not  wanting.  It 
is  our  privilege,  as  it  is  our  duty,  to  offer  of  it  in  con- 
secration to  our  redeeming  Lord,  though  it  be  no  more 
than  parched  corn.  The  smallness  or  meanness  of 
what  we  have  to  give,  need  not  keep  us  back  from 
presenting  our  meal-offering. 

If  we  have  rightly  understood  the  significance  of 
this  offering,  the  ritual  which  is  given  will  now  easily 
yield  us  its  lessons.  As  in  the  case  of  the  burnt- 
offering,  the  meal-offering  also  must  be  brought  unto 
the  Lord  by  the  offerer  himself.  The  consecration  of 
our  works,  like  the  consecration  of  our  persons,  must 
be  our  own  voluntary  act.  Yet  the  offering  must  be 
delivered  through  the  mediation  of  the  priest ;  the 
offerer  must  not  presume  himself  to  lay  it  on  the  altar. 
Even  so  still.  In  this,  as  in  all  else,  the  Heavenly  High 
Priest  must  act  in  our  behalf  with  God.  We  do  not, 
by  our  consecration  of  our  works,  therefore  become 
able  to  dispense  with  His  offices  as  Mediator  between 
us  and  God.  This  is  the  thought  of  many,  but  it  is 
a  great  mistake.  No  offering  made  to  God,  except  in 
and  through  the  appointed  Priest,  can  be  accepted  of 
Him. 

It  was  next  directed  that  the  priest,  having  received 
the  offering  at  the  hand  of  the  worshipper,  should  make 
a  twofold  use  of  it.  In  the  burnt-offering  the  whole 
was  to  be  burnt ;  but  in  the  meal-offering  only  a  small 
part.  The  priest  was  to  take  out  of  the  offering,  in 
each  case,  '*  a  memorial  thereof,  and  burn  it  on  the 
altar";  and  then  it  is  added  (vv.  3-10),   "  that  which 


•ii.  i-i6.]  THE  MEAL-OFFERING.  77 

is  left  of  the  meal  offering" — which  was  always  much 
the  larger  part — "  shall  be  Aaron's  and  his  sons'." 
The  small  part  taken  out  by  the  priest  for  the  altar 
was  burnt  with  fire ;  and  its  consumption  by  the  fire 
of  the  altar,  as  in  the  other  offerings,  symbolised  God's 
gracious  acceptance  and  appropriation  of  the  offering. 

But  here  the  question  naturally  arises,  if  the  total 
consecration  of  the  worshipper  and  his  full  acceptance 
by  God,  in  the  case  of  the  burnt-offering,  was  signified 
by  the  burning  of  the  whole,  how  is  it  that,  in  this  case, 
where  also  we  must  think  of  a  consecration  of  the  whole, 
yet  only  a  small  part  was  offered  to  God  in  the  fire  of 
the  altar?  But  the  difficulty  is  only  in  appearance. 
For,  no  less  than  in  the  burnt-offering,  all  of  the  meal- 
offering  is  presented  to  God,  and  all  is  no  less  truly 
accepted  by  Him.  The  difference  in  the  two  cases  is 
only  in  the  use  to  which  God  puts  the  offering.  A 
part  of  the  meal-offering  is  burnt  on  the  altar  as  *'  a 
memorial,"  to  signify  that  God  takes  notice  of  and 
graciously  accepts  the  consecrated  fruit  of  our  labours. 
It  is  called  "  a  memorial "  in  that,  so  to  speak,  it 
reminded  the  Lord  of  the  service  and  devotion  of  His 
faithful  servant.  The  thought  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
words  of  Nehemiah  (v.  19),  who  said  :  *^  Think  upon 
me,  O  Lord,  for  good,  according  to  all  that  I  have  done 
for  this  people ;  "  and  by  the  word  of  the  angel  to 
Cornelius  (Acts  x.  4)  :  "  Thy  prayers  and  thine  alms  are 
gone  up  for  a  memorial  before  God ; "  for  a  memorial 
in  such  wise  as  to  procure  to  him  a  gracious  visitation. 

The  remaining  and  larger  portion  of  the  meal-offer- 
ing was  given  to  the  priest,  as  being  the  servant  of 
God  in  the  work  of  His  house.  To  this  service  he  was 
set  apart  from  secular  occupations,  that  he  might  give 
himself  wholly  to  the  duties  of  this  office.     In  this  he 


78  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

must  needs  be  supported ;  and  to  this  end  it  was 
ordained  by  God  that  a  certain  part  of  the  various 
oflferings  should  be  given  him,  as  we  shall  see  more 
fully  hereafter. 

In  striking  contrast  with  this  ordinance,  which  gave 
the  largest  part  of  the  meal-offering  to  the  priest,  is 
the  law  that  of  the  frankincense  he  must  take  nothing  ; 
"  all  "  must  go  up  to  God,  with  the  "  memorial,"  in  the 
fire  of  the  altar  (vv.  2,  i6).  But  in  consistency  with 
the  symbolism  it  could  not  be  otherwise.  For  the 
frankincense  was  the  emblem  of  prayer,  adoration,  and 
praise ;  of  this,  then,  the  priest  must  take  nought  for 
himself  The  manifest  lesson  is  one  for  all  who  preach 
the  Gospel.  Of  the  incense  of  praise  which  may  ascend 
from  the  hearts  of  God's  people,  as  they  minister  the 
Word,  they  must  take  none  for  themselves.  '^  Not  unto 
us,  O  Lord,  but  unto  Thy  name  be  the  glory." 

Such  then  was  the  meaning  of  the  meal-offering.  It 
represents  the  consecration  unto  God  by  the  grace  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  with  prayer  and  praise,  of  all  the  work 
of  our  hands ;  an  offering  with  salt,  but  without  leaven, 
in  token  of  our  unchanging  covenant  with  a  holy  God. 
And  God  accepts  the  oflferings  thus  presented  by  His 
people,  as  a  savour  of  a  sweet  smell,  with  which  He  is 
well  pleased.  We  have  called  this  consecration  a  duty ; 
is  it  not  rather  a  most  exalted  privilege  ? 

Only  let  us  remember,  that  although  our  consecrated 
oflferings  are  accepted,  we  are  not  accepted  because  of 
the  oflferings.  Most  instructive  it  is  to  observe  that 
the  meal-oflferings  were  not  to  be  offered  alone;  a 
bloody  sacrifice,  a  burnt-oflfering  or  sin-oflfering,  must 
always  precede.  How  vividly  this  brings  before  us  the 
truth  that  it  is  only  when  first  our  persons  have  been 
cleansed  by  atoning  blood,  and  thus  and  therefore  con- 


vi.  14-23.]  THE  MEAL-OFFERING.  79 

secrated  unto  God,  that  the  consecration  and  acceptance 
of  our  works  is  possible.  We  are  not  accepted  because 
we  consecrate  our  v/orks,  but  our  consecrated  works 
themselves  are  accepted  because  first  we  have  been 
"  accepted  in  the  Beloved  "  through  faith  in  the  blood 
of  the  holy  Lamb  of  God. 

The  Daily  Meal-Offering. 

vi.  14-23. 

"  And  this  is  the  law  of  the  meal-offering :  the  sons  of  Aaron  shall 
offer  it  before  the  Lord,  before  the  altar.  And  he  shall  take  up  there- 
from his  handful,  of  the  fine  flour  of  the  meal- offering  and  of  the  oil 
thereof,  and  all  the  frankincense  which  is  upon  the  meal-offering, 
and  shall  burn  it  upon  the  altar  for  a  sweet  savour,  as  the  memorial 
thereof,  unto  the  Lord.  And  that  which  is  left  thereof  shall  Aaron 
and  his  sons  eat :  it  shall  be  eaten  without  leaven  in  a  holy  place :  in 
the  court  of  the  tent  of  meeting  they  shall  eat  it.  It  shall  not  be 
baken  with  leaven.  I  have  given  it  as  their  portion  of  My  offerings 
made  by  fire ;  it  is  most  holy,  as  the  sin-offering,  and  as  the  guilt- 
offering.  Every  male  among  the  children  of  Aaron  shall  eat  of  it,  as 
a  due  for  ever  throughout  your  generations,  from  the  offerings  of  the 
Lord  made  by  fire :  whosoever  toucheth  them  shall  be  holy.  And 
the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying.  This  is  the  oblation  of  Aaron  and 
of  his  sons,  which  they  shall  offer  unto  the  Lord  in  the  day  when  he 
is  anointed  ;  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah  of  fine  flour  for  a  meal-offering 
perpetually,  half  of  it  in  the  morning,  and  half  thereof  in  the  evening. 
On  a  baking-pan  it  shall  be  made  with  oil ;  when  it  is  soaked,  thou 
shalt  bring  it  in :  in  baken  pieces  shalt  thou  offer  the  meal-offering 
for  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord.  And  the  anointed  priest  that  shall 
be  in  his  stead  from  among  his  sons  shall  offer  it :  by  a  statute  for 
ever  it  shall  be  wholly  burnt  unto  the  Lord.  And  every  meal-offering 
of  the  priest  shall  be  wholly  burnt :  it  shall  not  be  eaten." 

As  there  were  not  only  the  burnt-offerings  of  the 
individual  Israelite,  but  also  a  daily  burnt-offering, 
morning  and  evening,  presented  by  the  priest  as  the 
representative  of  the  collective  nation,  so  also  with  the 
meal-offering.  The  law  concerning  this  daily  meal- 
offering  is  given  in  chap.  vi.  19.     The  amount  in  this 


8o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

case  was  prescribed,  being  apparently  the  amount 
regarded  as  a  day's  portion  of  food — "  the  tenth  part  of 
an  ephah  of  fine  flour/'  half  of  which  was  to  be  offered 
in  the  morning  and  half  in  the  evening,  made  on  a 
baking  pan  with  oil,  "  for  a  sweet  savour  unto  the 
Lord."  Unlike  the  meal-offering  of  the  individual,  it 
is  said,  ^'  by  a  statute  for  ever,  it  shall  be  wholly  burnt 
unto  the  Lord  .  .  .  Every  meal-offering  of  the  priest 
shall  be  wholly  burnt;  it  shall  not  be  eaten."  This 
single  variation  from  the  ordinance  of  chap.  ii.  is 
simply  an  application  of  the  principle  which  governs 
all  the  sacrifices  except  the  peace-offering,  that  he  who 
offered  any  sacrifice  could  never  himself  eat  of  it ;  and 
as  the  priest  in  this  case  was  the  offerer,  the  symbolism 
required  that  he  should  himself  have  nothing  of  the 
offering,  as  being  wholly  given  by  him  to  the  Lord. 
And  this  meal-offering  was  to  be  presented,  not 
merely,  as  some  have  inferred  from  ver.  20,  on  the  day 
of  the  anointing  of  the  high  priest,  but,  as  is  expressly 
said,  "perpetually." 

The  typical  meaning  of  the  meal-offering,  and,  in 
particular,  of  this  daily  meal-offering,  which,  as  we 
learn  from  Exod.  xxx.  39,  40,  was  offered  with  the 
daily  burnt-offering,  is  very  clear.  Every  meal-offering 
pointed  to  Christ  in  His  consecration  of  all  His  works 
to  the  Father.  And  as  the  daily  burnt-offering  pre- 
sented by  Aaron  and  his  sons  typified  our  heavenly 
High  Priest  as  offering  His  person  in  daily  consecra- 
tion unto  God  in  our  behalf,  so,  in  the  daily  meal- 
offering,  wholly  burnt  upon  the  altar,  we  see  Him  in 
like  manner  offering  unto  God  in  perfect  consecration, 
day  by  day,  perpetually,  all  His  works  for  our  accept- 
ance. To  the  believer,  often  sorely  oppressed  with  the 
sense  of  the  imperfection  of  his  own  consecration  of 


vi.  14-23.]  THE  MEAL-OFFERING.  81 

his  daily  works,  in  that  because  of  this  the  Father  is 
not  glorified  by  him  as  He  should  be,  how  exceedingly 
comforting  this  view  of  Christ !  For  that  which,  at  the 
best,  we  do  so  imperfectly  and  interruptedly.  He  does 
in  our  behalf  perfectly,  and  with  never-failing  constancy  ; 
thus  at  once  perfectly  glorifying  the  Father,  and  also, 
through  the  virtue  of  the  boundless  merit  of  this  con- 
secration, constantly  procuring  for  us  daily  grace  unto 
the  life  eternal. 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE  PEACE-OFFERING. 
Lev.  iii.  1-17;  vii.  11-34;  xix.  5-8;  xxii.  21-25. 

IN  chap.  iii.  is  given,  though  not  with  completeness, 
the  law  of  the  peace-offering.  The  alternative 
rendering  of  this  term,  "  thank-offering  "  (marg.  R.V.), 
precisely  expresses  only  one  variety  of  the  peace- 
offering  ;  and  while  it  is  probably  impossible  to  find 
any  one  word  that  shall  express  in  a  satisfactory  way 
the  whole  conception  of  this  offering,  it  is  not  easy 
to  find  one  better  than  the  familiar  term  which  the 
Revisers  have  happily  retained.  As  will  be  made  clear 
in  the  sequel,  it  was  the  main  object  of  this  offering, 
as  consisting  of  a  sacrifice  terminating  in  a  festive 
sacrificial  meal,  to  express  the  conception  of  friendship, 
peace,  and  fellowship  with  God  as  secured  by  the 
shedding  of  atoning  blood. 

Like  the  burnt-offering  and  the  meal-offering,  the 
peace-offering  had  come  down  from  the  times  before 
Moses.  We  read  of  it,  though  not  explicitly  named,  in 
Gen.  xxxi.  54,  on  the  occasion  of  the  covenant  between 
Jacob  and  Laban,  wherein  they  jointly  took  God  as 
witness  of  their  covenant  of  friendship ;  and,  again,  in 
Exod.  xviii.  12,  where  "  Jethro  took  a  burnt-offering  and 
sacrifices  for  God ;  and  Aaron  came  and  all  the  elders 
of  Israel,  to  eat  bread  with  Moses'  father-in-law  before 


iii.i-i7.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  83 

God."  Nor  was  this  form  of  sacrifice,  any  more  than 
the  burnt-offering,  confined  to  the  line  of  Abraham's 
seed.  Indeed,  scarcely  any  religious  custom  has  from 
the  most  remote  antiquity  been  more  universally  ob- 
served than  this  of  a  sacrifice  essentially  connected 
v^^ith  a  sacrificial  meal.  An  instance  of  the  heathen 
form  of  this  sacrifice  is  even  given  in  the  Pentateuch, 
where  we  are  told  (Exod.  xxxii.  6)  how  the  people,  having 
made  the  golden  calf,  worshipped  it  with  peace-offerings, 
and  "  sat  down  to  eat  and  to  drink "  at  the  sacrificial 
meal  which  was  inseparable  from  the  peace-offering ; 
while  in  i  Cor.  x.  Paul  refers  to  like  sacrificial  feasts 
as  common  among  the  idolaters  of  Corinth. 

It  hardly  needs  to  be  again  remarked  that  there  is 
nothing  in  such  facts  as  these  to  trouble  the  faith  of 
the  Christian,  any  more  than  in  the  general  prevalence 
of  worship  and  of  prayer  among  heathen  nations. 
Rather,  in  all  these  cases  alike,  are  we  to  see  the 
expression  on  the  part  of  man  of  a  sense  of  need  and 
want,  especially,  in  this  case,  of  friendship  and  fellow- 
ship with  God ;  and,  seeing  that  the  conception  of  a 
sacrifice  culminating  in  a  feast  was,  in  truth,  most 
happily  adapted  to  symbolise  this  idea,  surely  it  were 
nothing  strange  that  God  should  base  the  ordinances 
of  His  own  worship  upon  such  universal  conceptions 
and  customs,  correcting  in  them  only,  as  we  shall  see, 
what  might  directly  or  indirectly  misrepresent  truth. 
Where  an  alphabet,  so  to  speak,  is  thus  already  found 
existing,  whether  in  letters  or  in  symbols,  why  should 
the  Lord  communicate  a  new  and  unfamiliar  symbolism, 
which,  because  new  and  unfamiliar,  would  have  been, 
for  that  reason,  far  less  likely  to  be  understood  ? 

The  plan  of  chap.  iii.  is  very  simple ;  and  there  is 
little  in  its  phraseology  requiring  explanation.      Pre- 


84  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

scriptions  are  given  for  the  offering  of  peace-offerings, 
first,  from  the  herd  (vv.  1-5) ;  then,  from  the  flock, 
whether  of  the  sheep  (vv.  6-1 1)  or  of  the  goats 
(w.  12-16).  After  each  of  these  three  sections  it  is 
formally  declared  of  each  offering  that  it  is  "a  sweet 
savour,"  "  an  offering  made  by  fire,"  or  "  the  food  of 
the  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord."  The  chapter 
then  closes  with  a  prohibition,  specially  occasioned  by 
the  directions  for  this  sacrifice,  of  all  use  by  Israel  of 
fat  or  blood  as  food. 

The  regulations  relating  to  the  selection  of  the  victim 
for  the  offering  differ  trom  those  for  the  burnt- offering 
in  allowing  a  greater  hberty  of  choice.  A  female  was 
permitted,  as  well  as  a  male ;  though  recorded  instances 
of  the  observance  of  the  peace-offering  indicate  that 
the  male  was  even  here  preferred  when  obtainable. 
The  offering  of  a  dove  or  a  pigeon  is  not,  however, 
mentioned  as  permissible,  as  in  the  case  of  the  burnt- 
offering.  But  this  is  no  exception  to  the  rule  of  greater 
liberty  of  choice,  since  these  were  excluded  by  the 
object  of  the  offering  as  a  sacrificial  meal,  for  which, 
obviously,  a  small  bird  would  be  insufficient.  Ordi- 
narily, the  victim  must  be  without  blemish ;  and  yet, 
even  in  this  matter,  a  larger  liberty  was  allowed 
(chap.  xxii.  23)  in  the  case  of  those  which  were  termed 
"  free-will  offerings,"  where  it  was  permitted  to  offer  even 
a  bullock  or  a  lamb  which  might  have  "  some  part  super- 
fluous or  lacking."  The  latitude  of  choice  thus  allowed 
finds  its  sufficient  explanation  in  the  fact  that  while  the 
idea  of  representation  and  expiation  had  a  place  in  the 
peace-oftering  as  in  all  bloody  offerings,  yet  this  was 
subordinate  to  the  chief  intent  of  the  sacrifice,  which 
was  to  represent  the  victim  as  food  given  by  God  to 
Israel  in  the  sacrificial  meal.     It  is  to  be  observed  that 


iii.  1-17.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  85 

only  such  defects  are  therefore  allowed  in  the  victim 
as  could  not  possibly  affect  its  value  as  food.  And  so 
even  already,  in  these  regulations  as  to  the  selection  of 
the  victim,  we  have  a  hint  that  we  have  now  to  do  with 
a  type,  in  which  the  dominant  thought  is  not  so  much 
Christ,  the  Holy  Victim,  our  representative,  as  Christ 
the  Lamb  of  God,  the  food  of  the  soul,  through  par- 
ticipation in  which  we  have  fellowship  with  God. 

As  before  remarked,  the  ritual  acts  in  the  bloody 
sacrifices  are,  in  all,  six,  each  of  which,  in  the  peace- 
offering,  has  its  proper  place.  Of  these,  the  first  four, 
namely,  the  presentation,  the  laying  on  of  the  hand, 
the  killing  of  the  victim,  and  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood, 
are  precisely  the  same  as  in  the  burnt-offering,  and 
have  the  same  symbolic  and  typical  significance.  In 
both  the  burnt-offering  and  the  peace-offering,  the 
innocent  victim  typified  the  Lamb  of  God,  presented 
by  the  sinner  in  the  act  of  faith  to  God  as  an  atonement 
for  sin  through  substitutionary  death  ;  and  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  blood  upon  the  altar  signifies  in  this,  as  in 
the  other,  the  application  of  that  blood  Godward  by  the 
Divine  Priest  acting  in  our  behalf,  and  thereby  pro- 
curing for  us  remission  of  sin,  redemption  through  the 
blood  of  the  slain  Lamb. 

In  the  other  two  ceremonies,  namely,  the  burning 
and  the  sacrificial  meal,  the  peace-offering  stands  in 
strong  contrast  with  the  burnt-offering.  In  the  burnt- 
offering  all  was  burned  upon  the  altar ;  in  the  peace- 
offering  all  the  fat,  and  that  only.  The  detailed 
directions  which  are  given  in  the  case  of  each  class  of 
victims  are  intended  simply  toi  direct  the  selection  of 
those  parts  of  the  animal  in  which  the  fat  is^  chiefly 
found.  They  are  precisely  the  same  for  each,  except 
in  the  case  of  the  sheep.     With  regard  to  such  a  victim, 


86  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

the  particular  is  added,  according  to  King  James's  ver- 
sion, "  the  whole  rump ; "  but  the  Revisers  have  with 
abundant  reason  corrected  this  translation,  giving  it 
correctly  as  ''the  fat  tail  entire."  The  change  is  an 
instructive  one,  as  it  points  to  the  idea  which  deter- 
mined this  selection  of  all  the  fat  for  the  offering  by 
fire.  For  the  reference  is  to  a  special  breed  of  sheep 
which  is  still  found  in  Palestine,  Arabia,  and  North 
Africa.  With  these,  the  tail  grows  to  an  immense 
size,  sometimes  weighing  fifteen  pounds  or  more,  and 
consists  almost  entirely  of  a  rich  substance,  in  character 
between  fat  and  marrow.  By  the  Orientals  in  the 
regions  where  this  variety  of  sheep  is  found  it  is  still 
esteemed  as  the  most  valuable  part  of  the  animal  for 
food.  And  thus,  just  as  in  the  meal-offering  the  Israelite 
was  required  to  bring  out  of  all  his  grain  the  best,  and 
of  his  meal  the  finest,  so  in  the  peace-offering  he  is 
required  to  bring  the  fat,  and  in  the  case  of  the  sheep 
this  fat  tail,  as  the  best  and  richest  parts,  to  be  burnt 
upon  the  altar  to  Jehovah.  And  the  burning,  as  in 
the  whole  burnt-sacrifice,  was,  so  to  speak,  the  visible 
Divine  appropriation  of  that  which  was  placed  upon 
the  altar,  the  best  of  the  offering,  as  appointed  to  be 
"  the  food  of  God."  If  the  symbolism,  at  first  thought, 
perplex  any,  we  have  but  to  remember  how  frequently 
in  Scripture  "  fat "  and  "  fatness "  are  used  as  the 
symbol  of  that  which  is  richest  and  best ;  as,  e.g.f 
where  the  Psalmist  says,  "  They  shall  be  abundantly 
satisfied  with  the  fatness  of  Thy  house  ; "  and  Isaiah, 
"  Come  unto  Me,  and  let  your  soul  delight  itself  in 
fatness."  Thus  when,  in  the  peace-offering,  of  which 
the  larger  part  was  intended  for  food,  it  is  ordered 
that  the  fat  should  be  given  to  God  in  the  fire  of  the 
altar,  the  same  lesson  is  taught  as  in  the  meal-offering, 


iii.  1-17.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  87 

namely,  God  is  ever  to  be  served  first  and  with  the 
best  that  we  have.     "  All  the  fat  is  the  Lord's." 

In  the  burnt-offering,  the  burning  ended  the  cere- 
monial :  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  since  all  was  to  be 
burnt,  the  object  of  the  sacrifice  was  attained  when  the 
burning  was  completed.  But  in  the  case  of  the  peace- 
offering,  to  the  burning  of  the  fat  upon  the  altar  now 
followed  the  culminating  act  of  the  ritual,  in  the  eating 
of  the  sacrifice.  In  this,  however,  we  must  distinguish 
from  the  eating  by  the  offerer  and  his  household,  the 
eating  by  the  priests  ;  of  which  only  the  first-named 
properly  belonged  to  the  ceremonial  of  the  sacrifice. 
The  assignment  of  certain  parts  of  the  sacrifice  to  be 
eaten  by  the  priests  has  the  same  meaning  as  in  the 
meal-offering.  These  portions  were  regarded  in  the 
law  as  given,  not  by  the  offerer,  but  by  God,  to  His 
servants  the  priests ;  that  they  might  eat  them,  not  as 
a  ceremonial  act,  but  as  their  appointed  sustenance 
from  His  table  whom  they  served.  To  this  we  shall 
return  in  a  subsequent  chapter,  and  therefore  need  not 
dwell  upon  it  here. 

This  eating  of  the  sacrifice  by  the  priests  has  thus 
not  yet  taken  us  beyond  the  conception  of  the  meal- 
offering,  with  a  part  of  which  they,  in  like  manner,  by 
God's  arrangement,  were  fed.  Quite  different,  however, 
is  the  sacrificial  eating  by  the  offerer  which  follows. 
He  had  brought  the  appointed  victim  ;  it  had  been  slain 
in  his  behalf ;  the  blood  had  been  sprinkled  for  atone- 
ment on  the  altar ;  the  fat  had  been  taken  off  and 
burned  upon  the  altar ;  the  thigh  and  breast  had  been 
given  back  by  God  to  the  officiating  priest ;  and  now, 
last  of  all,  the  offerer  himself  receives  back  from  God, 
as  it  were,  the  remainder  of  the  flesh  of  the  victim,  that 
he  himself  might  eat  it  before  Jehovah.     The  chapter 


88  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

before  us  gives  no  directions  as  to  this  sacrificial  eating ; 
these  are  given  in  Deut.  xii.  6,  7,  17,  18,  to  which 
passage,  in  order  to  the  full  understanding  of  that 
which  is  most  distinctive  in  the  peace-offering,  we  must 
refer.  In  the  two  verses  last  named,  we  have  a  regula- 
tion which  covers,  not  only  the  peace-offerings,  but 
with  them  all  other  sacrificial  eatings,  thus :  *'  Thou 
mayest  not  eat  within  thy  gates  the  tithe  of  thy  corn, 
or  of  thy  wine,  or  of  thy  oil,  or  the  firstlings  of 
thy  herd  or  of  thy  flock,  nor  any  of  thy  vows  which 
thou  vowest,  nor  thy  free-will  offerings,  nor  the  heave- 
offering  of  thy  hand :  but  thou  shalt  eat  them  before 
the  Lord  thy  God  in  the  place  which  the  Lord  thy  God 
shall  choose,  thou  and  thy  son,  and  thy  daughter,  and 
thy  man-servant,  and  thy  maid-servant,  and  the  Levite 
that  is  within  thy  gates ;  and  thou  shalt  rejoice  before 
the  Lord  thy  God  in  all  that  thou  puttest  thy  hand 
unto." 

In  these  directions  are  three  particulars ;  the  offerings 
were  to  be  eaten,  by  the  offerer,  not  at  his  own  home, 
but  before  Jehovah  at  the  central  sanctuary;  he  was 
to  include  in  this  sacrificial  feast  all  the  members  of 
his  family,  and  any  Levite  that  might  be  stopping  with 
him ;  and  he  was  to  make  the  feast  an  occasion  of  holy 
joy  before  the  Lord  in  the  labour  of  his  hands.  What 
was  now  the  special  significance  of  all  this  ?  As  this 
was  the  special  characteristic  of  the  peace-offering,  the 
answer  to  this  question  will  point  us  to  its  true  signifi- 
cance, both  for  Israel  in  the  first  place,  and  then  for 
us  as  well,  as  a  type  of  Him  who  was  to  come. 

It  is  not  hard  to  perceive  the  significance  of  a  feast 
as  a  symbol.  It  is  a  natural  and  suitable  expression 
of  friendship  and  fellowship.  He  who  gives  the  feast 
thereby   shows   to    the   guests   his  friendship   toward 


iii.  I-I7.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  89 

them,  in  inviting  them  to  partake  of  the  food  of  his 
house.  And  if,  in  any  case,  there  has  been  an  inter- 
ruption or  breach  of  friendship,  such  an  invitation  to 
a  feast,  and  association  in  it  of  the  formerly  aUenated 
parties,  is  a  declaration  on  the  part  of  him  who  gives 
the  feast,  as  also  of  those  who  accept  his  invitation, 
that  the  breach  is  healed,  and  that  where  there  was 
enmity,  is  now  peace. 

So  natural  is  this  symbolism  that,  as  above  remarked, 
it  has  been  a  custom  very  widely  spread  among  heathen 
peoples  to  observe  sacrificial  feasts,  very  like  to  this 
peace-offering  of  the  Hebrews,  wherein  a  victim  is  first 
offered  to  some  deity,  and  its  flesh  then  eaten  by  the 
offerer  and  his  friends.  Of  such  sacrificial  feasts  we 
read  in  ancient  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  in  Persia, 
and,  in  modern  times,  among  the  Arabs,  Hindoos,  and 
Chinese,  and  various  native  races  of  the  American 
continent ;  always  having  the  same  symbolic  intent 
and  meaning — namely,  an  expression  of  desire  after 
friendship  and  intercommunion  with  the  deity  thus 
worshipped.  The  existence  of  this  custom  in  Old 
Testament  days  is  recognised  in  Isa.  Ixv.  11  (R.V.), 
where  God  charges  the  idolatrous  Israelites  with  pre- 
paring **a  table  for  the  god  Fortune,"  and  filling  up 
"  mingled  wine  unto  (the  goddess)  Destiny  " — certain 
Babylonian  (?)  deities ;  and  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
already  remarked,  the  Apostle  Paul  refers  to  the  same 
custom  among  the  idolatrous  Greeks  of  Corinth. 

And  because  this  symbolic  meaning  of  a  feast  is  as 
suitable  and  natural  as  it  is  universal,  we  find  that  in 
the  symbolism  of  Holy  Scripture,  eating  and  drinking, 
and  especially  the  feast,  has  been  appropriated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  express  precisely  the  same  ideas  of  re- 
conciliation,  friendship,   and  intercommunion   between 


90  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


the  giver  of  the  feast  and  the  guest,  as  in  all  the  great 
heathen  reHgions.  We  meet  this  thought,  for  instance, 
in  Psalm  xxiii.  5  :  *'  Thou  preparest  a  table  before  me 
in  the  presence  of  my  enemies ; "  and  in  Psalm  xxxvi.  8, 
where  it  is  said  of  God's  people  :  "  They  shall  be 
abundantly  satisfied  with  the  fatness  of  Thy  house  ; " 
and  again,  in  the  grand  prophecy  in  Isaiah,  xxv.,  of 
the  final  redemption  of  all  the  long-estranged  nations, 
we  read  that  when  God  shall  destroy  in  Mount  Zion 
"  the  veil  that  is  spread  over  all  nations,  and  swallow  up 
death  for  ever,"  then  "  the  Lord  of  hosts  shall  make  unto 
all  peoples  a  feast  of  fat  things,  a  feast  of  wines  on  the 
lees,  of  fat  things  full  of  marrow,  of  wines  on  the  lees 
well  refined."  And  in  the  New  Testament,  the  symbol- 
ism is  taken  up  again,  and  used  repeatedly  by  our  Lord, 
as,  for  example,  in  the  parables  of  the  Great  Supper 
(Luke  xiv.  15-24)  and  the  Prodigal  Son  (Luke  xv.  23), 
the  Marriage  of  the  King's  Son  (Matt.  xxii.  1-14),  con- 
cerning the  blessings  of  redemption  ;  and  also  in  that 
ordinance  of  the  Holy  Supper,  which  He  has  appointed 
to  be  a  continual  reminder  of  our  relation  to  Himself, 
and  means  for  the  communication  of  His  grace,  through 
our  symbolic  eating  therein  of  the  flesh  of  the  slain 
Lamb  of  God. 

Thus,  nothing  in  the  Levitical  symbolism  is  better 
certified  to  us  than  the  meaning  of  the  feast  of  the 
peace-offering.  Employing  a  symbol  already  familiar 
to  the  world  for  centuries,  God  ordained  this  eating 
of  the  peace-offering  in  Israel,  to  be  the  symbolic 
expression  of  peace  and  fellowship  with  Himself.  In 
Israel  it  was  to  be  eaten  ^'before  the  Lord,"  and,  as 
well  it  might  be,  ''with  rejoicing." 

But,  just  at  this  point,  the  question  has  been  raised  : 
How  are  we  to  conceive  of  the  sacrificial  feast  of  the 


Hi.  I-I7.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  91 

peace-offering  ?  Was  it  a  feast  offered  and  presented 
by  the  Israelite  to  God,  or  a  feast  given  by  God  to 
the  Israelite  ?  In  other  words,  in  this  feast,  who  was 
represented  as  host,  and  who  as  guest  ?  Among  other 
nations  than  the  Hebrews,  it  was  the  thought  in  such 
cases  that  the  feast  was  given  by  the  worshipper  to 
his  god.  This  is  well  illustrated  by  an  Assyrian 
inscription  of  Esarhaddon,  who,  in  describing  his  palace 
at  Nineveh,  says :  **  I  filled  with  beauties  the  great 
palace  of  my  empire,  and  I  called  it  *  the  Palace  which 
rivals  the  World.'  Ashur,  Ishtar  of  Nineveh,  and  the 
gods  of  Assyria,  all  of  them,  I  feasted  within  it.  Vic- 
tims, precious  and  beautiful,  I  sacrificed  before  them, 
and  I  caused  them  to  receive  my  gifts." 

But  here  we  come  upon  one  of  the  most  striking  and 
instructive  contrasts  between  the  heathen  conception  of 
the  sacrificial  feast  and  the  same  symbolism  as  used  in 
Leviticus  and  other  Scripture.  In  the  heathen  sacri- 
ficial feasts,  it  is  man  who  feasts  God  ;  in  the  peace- 
offering  of  Leviticus,  it  is  God  who  feasts  man.  Some 
have  indeed  denied  that  this  is  the  conception  of  the 
peace-offering,  but  most  strangely.  It  is  true  that  the 
offerer,  in  the  first  instance,  had  brought  the  victim ; 
but  it  seems  to  be  forgotten  by  such,  that  prior  to  the 
feasting  he  had  already  given  the  victim  to  God,  to 
be  offered  in  expiation  for  sin.  From  that  time  the 
victim  was  no  longer,  any  part  of  it,  his  own  property, 
but  God's.  God  having  received  the  offering,  now 
directs  what  use  shall  be  made  of  it ;  a  part  shall  be 
burned  upon  the  altar ;  another  part  He  gives  to  the 
priests.  His  servants ;  with  the  remaining  part  He 
now  feasts  the  worshipper. 

And  as  if  to  make  this  clearer  yet,  while  Esar- 
haddon, for  example,  gives  his  feast  to  the  gods,  not  in 


92  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

their  temples,  but  in  his  own  palace,  as  himself  the 
host  and  giver  of  the  feast,  the  Israelite,  on  the  con- 
trary,— that  he  might  not,  like  the  heathen,  complacently 
imagine  himself  to  be  feasting  God, — is  directed  to  eat 
the  peace-offering,  not  at  his  own  house,  but  at  God's 
house.  In  this  way  God  was  set  forth  as  the  host,  the 
One  who  gave  the  feast,  to  whose  house  the  Israelite 
was  invited,  at  whose  table  he  was  to  eat. 

Profoundly  suggestive  and  instructive  is  this  contrast 
between  the  heathen  custom  in  this  offering,  and  the 
Levitical  ordinance.  For  do  we  not  strike  here  one 
of  the  deepest  points  of  contrast  between  all  of  man's 
religion,  and  the  Gospel  of  God  ?  Man's  idea  always 
is,  until  taught  better  by  God,  "  I  will  be  religious 
and  make  God  my  friend,  by  doing  something,  giving 
something  for  God."  God,  on  the  contrary,  teaches 
us  in  this  symbolism,  as  in  all  Scripture,  the  exact 
reverse ;  that  we  become  truly  religious  by  taking, 
first  of  all,  with  thankfulness  and  joy,  what  He  has 
provided  for  us.  A  breach  of  friendship  between  man 
and  God  is  often  implied  in  the  heathen  rituals,  as  in 
the  ritual  of  Leviticus  ;  as  also,  in  both,  a  desire  for 
its  removal,  and  renewed  fellowship  with  God.  But 
in  the  former,  man  ever  seeks  to  attain  to  this  inter- 
communion of  friendship  by  something  that  he  himself 
will  do  for  God.  He  will  feast  God,  and  thus  God 
shall  be  well  pleased.  But  God's  way  is  the  opposite ! 
The  sacrificial  feast  at  which  man  shall  have  fellow- 
ship with  God  is  provided  not  by  man  for  God,  but  by 
God  for  man,  and  is  to  be  eaten,  not  in  our  house,  but 
spiritually  partaken  in  the  presence  of  the  invisible  God. 

We  can  now  perceive  the  teaching  of  the  peace- 
offering  for  Israel.  In  Israel,  as  among  all  the  nations, 
was  the  inborn  craving  after  fellowship  and  friendship 


iii.  I-I7.  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  93 


with  God.  The  ritual  of  the  peace-offering  taught  him 
how  it  was  to  be  obtained,  and  how  communion  might 
be  realised.  The  first  thing  was  for  him  to  bring  and 
present  a  divinely-appointed  victim ;  and  then,  the 
laying  of  the  hand  upon  his  head  with  confession  of 
sin ;  then,  the  slaying  of  the  victim,  the  sprinkling  of 
its  blood,  and  the  offering  of  its  choicest  parts  to  God 
in  the  altar  fire.  Till  all  this  was  done,  till  in  symbol 
expiation  had  been  thus  made  for  the  Israelite's  sin, 
there  could  be  no  feast  which  should  speak  of  friend- 
ship and  fellowship  with  God.  But  this  being  first 
done,  God  now,  in  token  of  His  free  forgiveness  and 
restoration  to  favour,  invites  the  Israelite  to  a  joyful 
feast  in  His  own  house. 

What  a  beautiful  symbol !  Who  can  fail  to  appre- 
ciate its  meaning  when  once  pointed  out  ?  Let  us 
imagine  that  through  some  fault  of  ours  a  dear  friend 
has  become  estranged;  we  used  to  eat  and  drink  at 
his  house,  but  there  has  been  none  of  that  now  for  a 
long  time.  We  are  troubled,  and  perhaps  seek  out 
one  who  is  our  friend's  friend  and  also  our  friend,  to 
whose  kindly  interest  we  entrust  our  case,  to  reconcile 
to  us  the  one  we  have  offended.  He  has  gone  to 
mediate ;  we  anxiously  await  his  return ;  but  or  ever 
he  has  come  back  again,  comes  an  invitation  from  him 
who  was  estranged,  just  in  the  old  loving  way,  asking 
that  we  will  eat  with  him  at  his  house.  Any  one  of  us 
would  understand  this  ;  we  should  be  sure  at  once  that 
the  mediator  had  healed  the  breach,  that  we  were 
forgiven,  and  were  welcome  as  of  old  to  all  that  our 
friend's  friendship  had  to  give. 

But  God  is  the  good  Friend  whom  we  have  estranged  ; 
and  the  Lord  Jesus,  His  beloved  Son,  and  our  own 
Friend  as  well,  is  the  Mediator ;  and  He  has  healed  the 


94  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


breach ;  having  made  expiation  for  our  sin  in  offering 
His  own  body  as  a  sacrifice,  He  has  ascended  into 
heaven,  there  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us ; 
He  has  not  yet  returned.  But  meantime  the  message 
comes  down  from  Him  to  all  who  are  hungering  after 
peace  with  God  :  "  The  feast  is  made  ;  and  ye  all  are 
invited  ;  come  !  all  things  are  now  ready  !  "  And  this 
is  the  message  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  the  peace-offering 
translated  into  words.  Can  we  hesitate  to  accept  the 
invitation  ?  Or,  if  we  have  sent  in  our  acceptance,  do 
we  need  to  be  told,  as  in  Deuteronomy,  that  we  are  to 
eat  "  with  rejoicing." 

And  now  we  may  well  observe  another  circumstance 
of  profound  typical  significance.  When  the  Israelite 
came  to  God's  house  to  eat  before  Jehovah,  he  was  fed 
there  with  the  flesh  of  the  slain  victim.  The  flesh  of 
that  very  victim  whose  blood  had  been  given  for  him 
on  the  altar,  now  becomes  his  food  to  sustain  the  life 
thus  redeemed.  Whether  the  Israelite  saw  into  the 
full  meaning  of  this,  we  may  easily  doubt ;  but  it  leads 
us  on  now  to  consider,  in  the  clearer  light  of  the  New 
Testament,  the  deepest  significance  of  the  peace-offering 
and  its  ritual,  as  typical  of  our  Lord  and  our  relation 
to  Him. 

That  the  victim  of  the  peace-offering,  as  of  all  the 
bloody  offerings,  was  intended  to  typify  Christ,  and 
that  the  death  of  that  victim,  in  the  peace-offering,  as 
in  all  the  bloody  offerings,  foreshadowed  the  death  of 
Christ  for  our  sins, — this  needs  no  further  proof.  And 
so,  again,  as  the  burning  of  the  whole  burnt-offering 
represented  Christ  as  accepted  for  us  in  virtue  of  His 
perfect  consecration  to  the  Father,  so  the  peace-offering, 
in  that  the  fat  is  burned,  represents  Christ  as  accepted 
for  us,  in  that  He  gave  to  God  in  our  behalf  the  very 


iii.  1-17.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  95 

best  He  had  to  offer.  For  in  that  incomparable 
sacrifice  we  are  to  think  not  only  of  the  completeness 
of  Christ's  consecration  for  us,  but  also  of  the  supreme 
excellence  of  that  which  He  offered  unto  God  for  us. 
All  that  was  best  in  Him,  reason,  affection,  and  will,  as 
well  as  the  members  of  His  holy  body, — nay,  the  God- 
head as  weU  as  the  Manhood,  in  the  holy  mystery  of 
the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation,  He  offered  for  us  unto 
the  Father. 

This,  however,  has  taken  us  as  yet  but  little  beyond 
the  meaning  of  the  burnt-offering.  The  closing  act  of 
the  ritual,  the  sacrificial  eating,  however,  reaches  in  its 
typical  significance  far  beyond  this  or  any  of  the  bloody 
offerings. 

First,  in  that  he  who  had  laid  his  hand  upon  the 
victim,  and  for  whom  the  blood  had  been  sprinkled,  is 
now  invited  by  God  to  feast  in  His  house,  upon  food 
given  by  himself,  the  food  of  the  sacrifice,  which  is 
called  in  the  ritual  *^the  bread  of  God,"  the  eating  of 
the  peace-offering  symbolically  teaches  us  that  if  we 
have  indeed  presented  the  Lamb  of  God  as  our  peace, 
not  only  has  the  Priest  sprinkled  for  us  the  blood,  so 
that  our  sin  is  pardoned,  but,  in  token  of  friendship 
now  restored,  God  invites  the  penitent  believer  to  sit 
down  at  His  own  table, — in  a  word,  to  joyful  fellowship 
with  Himself!  Which  means,  if  our  weak  faith  but 
take  it  in,  that  the  Almighty  and  Most  Holy  God  now 
invites  us  to  fellowship  in  all  the  riches  of  His  God- 
head ;  places  all  that  He  has  at  the  service  of  the 
believing  sinner,  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  the  slain 
Lamb.  The  prodigal  has  returned ;  the  Father  will 
now  feast  him  with  the  best  that  He  has.  Fellowship 
with  God  through  reconciliation  by  the  blood  of  the 
slain  Lamb, — this  then  is  the  first  thing  shadowed  forth 


96  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

in  this  part  of  the  ritual  of  the  peace-offering.  It  is 
a  sufficiently  wonderful  thought,  but  there  is  truth  yet 
more  wonderful  veiled  under  this  symbolism. 

For  when  we  ask,  what  then  was  the  bread  or  food  of 
God,  of  which  He  invited  him  to  partake  who  brought 
the  peace-oifering,  and  learn  that  it  was  the  flesh  of  the 
slain  victim  ;  here  we  meet  a  thought  which  goes  far 
beyond  atonement  by  the  shedding  of  blood.  The 
same  victim  whose  blood  was  shed  and  sprinkled  in 
atonement  for  sin  is  now  given  by  God  to  be  the 
redeemed  Israelite's  food,  by  which  his  life  shall  be 
sustained  !  Surely  we  cannot  mistake  the  meaning  of 
this.  For  the  victim  of  the  altar  and  the  food  of  the 
table  are  one  and  the  same.  Even  so  He  who  offered 
Himself  for  our  sins  on  Calvary,  is  now  given  by  God 
to  be  the  food  of  the  believer ;  who  now  thus  lives  by 
*'  eating  the  flesh "  of  the  slain  Lamb  of  God.  Does 
this  imagery,  at  first  thought,  seem  strange  and  un- 
natural ?  So  did  it  also  seem  strange  to  the  Jews, 
when  in  reply  to  our  Lord's  teaching  they  wonderingly 
asked  (John  vi.  52),  '*  How  can  this  man  give  us  His 
flesh  to  eat  ?  "  And  yet  so  Christ  spoke ;  and  when 
He  had  first  declared  Himself  to  the  Jews  as  the 
Antitype  of  the  manna,  the  true  Bread  sent  down  from 
heaven,  He  then  went  on  to  say,  in  words  which  far 
transcended  the  meaning  of  that  type  (John  vi.  51), 
"  The  bread  which  I  will  give  is  My  flesh,  for  the  life  of 
the  world."  How  the  light  begins  now  to  flash  back  from 
the  Gospel  to  the  Levitical  law,  and  from  this,  again, 
back  to  the  Gospel  !  In  the  one  we  read,  "  Ye  shall 
eat  the  flesh  of  your  peace-offerings  before  the  Lord 
with  joy ; "  in  the  other,  the  word  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
concerning  Himself  (John  vi.  33,  55,  57)  :  "The  bread 
of  God  is  that  which  cometh  down  out  of  heaven,  and 


iii.i-i7.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  97 


giveth  life  unto  the  world.  .  .  .  My  flesh  is  meat  indeed, 
and  My  blood  is  drink  indeed.  ...  As  the  living  Father 
sent  Me,  and  I  live  because  of  the  Father,  so  he  that 
eateth  Me,  he  also  shall  live  because  of  Me."  And 
now  the  Shekinah  light  of  the  ancient  tent  of  meeting 
begins  to  illumine  even  the  sacramental  table,  and  as 
we  listen  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  "  Take,  eat !  this  is 
My  body  which  was  broken  for  you,"  we  are  reminded 
of  the  feast  of  the  peace-offerings.  The  Israel  of  God 
is  to  be  fed  with  the  flesh  of  the  sacrificed  Lamb  which 
became  their  peace. 

Let  us  hold  fast  then  to  this  deepest  thought  of 
the  peace-offering,  a  truth  too  little  understood  even  by 
many  true  believers.  The  very  Christ  who  died  for 
our  sins,  if  we  have  by  faith  accepted  His  atonement 
and  have  been  for  His  sake  forgiven,  is  now  given  us 
by  God  for  the  sustenance  of  our  purchased  life.  Let 
us  make  use  of  Him,  daily  feeding  upon  Him,  that  so  we 
may  live  and  grow  unto  the  life  eternal ! 

But  there  is  yet  one  thought  more  concerning  this 
matter,  which  the  peace-offering,  as  far  as  was  possible, 
shadowed  forth.  Although  Christ  becomes  the  bread 
of  God  for  us  only  through  His  offering  of  Himself 
first  for  our  sins,  as  our  atonement,  yet  this  is  some- 
thing quite  distinct  from  atonement.  Christ  became 
our  sacrifice  once  for  all;  the  atonement  is  wholly  a 
fact  of  the  past.  But  Christ  is  now  still,  and  will  ever 
continue  to  be  unto  all  His  people,  the  bread  or  food  of 
God,  by  eating  whom  they  live.  He  was  the  propitia- 
tion, as  the  slain  victim ;  but,  in  virtue  of  that.  He  is 
now  become  the  flesh  of  the  peace-offering.  Hence  He 
must  be  this,  not  as  dead,  but  as  living,  in  the  present 
resurrection  life  of  His  glorified  humanity.  Here 
evidently  is  a  fact  which  could  not  be  directly  symbol- 

7 


98  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

ised  in  the  peace-offering  without  a  miracle  ever  re- 
peated. For  Israel  ate  of  the  victim,  not  as  living,  but 
as  dead.  It  could  not  be  otherwise.  And  yet  there  is 
a  regulation  of  the  ritual  (chap.  vii.  15-18  ;  xix.  6,  7) 
which  suggests  this  phase  of  truth  as  clearly  as  possible 
without  a  miracle.  It  was  ordered  that  none  of  the  flesh 
of  the  peace-offering  should  be  allowed  to  remain  beyond 
the  third  day ;  if  any  then  was  left  uneaten,  it  was  to 
be  burned  with  fire.  The  reason  for  this  lies  upon 
the  surface.  It  was  doubtless  that  there  might  be  no 
possible  beginning  of  decay ;  and  thus  it  was  secured 
that  the  flesh  of  the  victim  with  which  God  fed  the 
accepted  Israelite  should  be  the  flesh  of  a  victim  that 
was  not  to  see  corruption.  But  does  not  this  at  once 
remind  us  how  it  was  written  of  the  Antitype,  "  Thou 
wilt  not  suffer  Thy  Holy  One  to  see  corruption  "  ?  while, 
moreover,  the  extreme  limit  of  time  allowed  further 
reminds  us  how  it  was  precisely  on  the  third  day  that 
Christ  rose  from  the  dead  in  the  incorruptible  life  of 
the  resurrection,  that  so  He  might  through  all  time  con- 
tinue to  be  the  living  bread  of  His  people. 

And  thus  this  special  regulation  points  us  not  indis- 
tinctly toward  the  New  Testament  truth  that  Christ  is 
now  unto  us  the  bread  of  God,  not  merely  as  the  One 
who  died,  but  as  the  One  who,  living  again,  was  not 
allowed  to  see  corruption.  For  so  the  Apostle  argues 
(Rom.  V.  11),  that  "  being  justified  by  faith,"  and  so 
having  "peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ," 
our  peace-offering,  having  been  thus  *'  reconciled  by  His 
death,  we  shall  now  be  saved  by  His  life."  And  thus, 
as  we  appropriate  Christ  crucified  as  our  atonement, 
so  by  a  like  faith  we  are  to  appropriate  Christ  risen  as 
our  life,  to  be  for  us  as  the  flesh  of  the  peace-offering, 
our  nourishment  and  strength  by  which  we  live. 


iii.  1 6,  17.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  99 

The  Prohibition  of  Fat  and  Blood. 

iii.  16,  17;  vii.  22-27;  xvii,  10-16. 

"And  the  priest  shall  burn  them  upon  the  altar:  it  is  the  food  of 
the  offering  made  by  fire,  for  a  sweet  savour ;  all  the  fat  is  the  Lord's. 
It  shall  be  a  perpetual  statute  throughout  your  generations  in  all  your 
dwellings,  that  ye  shall  eat  neither  fat  nor  blood.  .  .  .  And  the  Lord 
spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  saying, 
Ye  shall  eat  no  fat,  of  ox,  or  sheep,  or  goat.  And  the  fat  of  that  which 
dieth  of  itself,  and  the  fat  of  that  which  is  torn  of  beasts,  may  be  used 
for  any  other  service  :  but  ye  shall  in  no  wise  eat  of  it.  For  whoso- 
ever eateth  the  fat  of  the  beast,  of  which  men  offer  an  offering  made 
by  fire  unto  the  Lord,  even  the  soul  that  eateth  it  shall  be  cut  off  from 
his  people.  And  ye  shall  eat  no  manner  of  blood,  whether  it  be  of 
fowl  or  of  beast,  in  any  of  your  dwellings.  Whosoever  it  be  that 
eateth  any  blood,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people.  .  .  .  And 
whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers 
that  sojourn  among  them,  that  eateth  any  manner  of  blood ;  I  will  set 
My  face  against  that  soul  that  eateth  blood,  and  will  cut  him  off  from 
among  his  people.  For  the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood  :  and  I 
have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  atonement  for  your  souls : 
for  it  is  the  blood  that  maketh  atonement  by  reason  of  the  life. 
Therefore  I  said  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  No  soul  of  you  shall  eat 
blood,  neither  shall  any  stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you  eat  blood. 
And  whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the  children  of  Israel,  or  of  the 
strangers  that  sojourn  among  them,  which  taketh  in  hunting  any 
beast  or  fowl  that  may  be  eaten ;  he  shall  pour  out  the  blood  thereof, 
and  cover  it  with  dust.  For  as  to  the  life  of  all  flesh,  the  blood 
thereof  is  all  one  with  the  life  thereof:  therefore  I  said  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  Ye  shall  eat  the  blood  of  no  manner  of  flesh :  for 
the  life  of  all  flesh  is  the  blood  thereof :  whosoever  eateth  it  shall  be 
cut  off.  And  every  soul  that  eateth  that  which  dieth  of  itself,  or  that 
which  is  torn  of  beasts,  whether  he  be  homeborn  or  a  stranger,  he 
shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  be  unclean 
until  the  even  :  then  shall  he  be  clean.  But  if  he  wash  them  not,  nor 
bathe  his  flesh,  then  he  shall  bear  his  iniquity,'' 

The  chapter  concerning  the  peace-offering  ends 
(w.  16,  17)  with  these  words:  "All  the  fat  is  the 
Lord's.  It  shall  be  a  perpetual  statute  for  you  through- 
out your  generations,  that  ye  shall  eat  neither  fat  nor 
blood." 


100  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

To  this  prohibition  so  much  importance  was  attached 
that  in  the  supplemental  *'  law  of  the  peace-offering  " 
(vii.  22-27)  it  is  repeated  with  added  explanation 
and  solemn  warning,  thus  :  "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  saying, 
Ye  shall  eat  no  manner  of  fat,  of  ox,  or  of  sheep,  or  of 
goat.  And  the  fat  of  the  beast  that  dieth  of  itself,  and 
the  fat  of  that  which  is  torn  with  beasts,  may  be  used  for 
any  other  service  :  but  ye  shall  in  no  wise  eat  of  it.  For 
whosoever  eateth  the  fat  of  the  beast,  of  which  men  offer 
an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord,  even  the  soul  that 
eateth  it  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people.  And  ye  shall 
eat  no  manner  of  blood,  whether  it  be  of  fowl  or  of  beast, 
in  any  of  your  dwellings.  Whosoever  it  be  that  eateth 
any  blood,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people." 

From  which  it  appears  that  this  prohibition  of  the 
eating  of  fat  referred  only  to  the  fat  of  such  beasts  as 
were  used  for  sacrifice.  With  these,  however,  the  law 
was  absolute,  whether  the  animal  was  presented  for 
sacrifice,  or  only  slain  for  food.  It  held  good  with 
regard  to  these  animals,  even  when,  because  of  the 
manner  of  their  death,  they  could  not  be  used  for  sacri- 
fice. In  such  cases,  though  the  fat  might  be  used  for 
other  purposes,  still  it  must  not  be  used  for  food. 

The  prohibition  of  the  blood  as  food  appears  from  xvii. 
10  to  have  been  absolutely  universal ;  it  is  said,  *'  What- 
soever man  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel,  or  of  the 
strangers  that  sojourn  among  them,  that  eateth  any  man- 
ner of  blood,  I  will  set  My  face  against  that  soul  that 
eateth  blood,  and  will  cut  him  off  from  among  his  people." 

The  reason  for  the  prohibition  of  the  eating  of  blood, 
whether  in  the  case  of  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the  peace- 
offerings  or  on  other  occasions,  is  given  (xvii.  11,  12), 
in  these  words :  "  For  the   Hfe  of  the  flesh  is  in  the 


xvii.  10-16.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  loi 

blood  :  and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to 
make  atonement  for  your  souls  :  for  it  is  the  blood  that 
maketh  atonement  by  reason  of  the  life.  Therefore  I 
said  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  No  soul  of  you  shall 
eat  blood,  neither  shall  any  stranger  that  sojourneth 
among  you  eat  blood." 

And  the  prohibition  is  then  extended  to  include  not 
only  the  blood  of  animals  which  were  used  upon  the 
altar,  but  also  such  as  were  taken  in  hunting,  thus 
(ver.  13):  "And  whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that  sojourn 
among  them,  which  taketh  in  hunting  any  beast  or  fowl 
that  may  be  eaten,  he  shall  pour  out  the  blood  thereof, 
and  cover  it  with  dust,"  as  something  of  peculiar  sanc- 
tity ;  and  then  the  reason  previously  given  is  repeated 
with  emphasis  (ver.  14) :  "  For  as  to  the  life  of  all  flesh, 
the  blood  thereof  is  all  one  with  the  life  thereof :  there- 
fore I  said  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  Ye  shall  eat  the 
blood  of  no  manner  of  flesh :  for  the  life  of  all  flesh  is 
the  blood  thereof;  whosoever  eateth  it  shall  be  cut  off." 

And  since,  when  an  animal  died  from  natural  causes, 
or  through  being  torn  of  a  beast,  the  blood  would  be 
drawn  from  the  flesh  either  not  at  all  or  but  imperfectly, 
as  further  guarding  against  the  possibility  of  eating 
blood,  it  is  ordered  (vv.  15,16)  that  he  who  does  this  shall 
be  held  unclean  :  '*  Every  soul  that  eateth  that  which 
dieth  of  itself,  or  that  which  is  torn  of  beasts,  whether  he 
be  home-born  or  a  stranger,  he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and 
bathe  himself  in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even. 
But  if  he  wash  them  not  nor  bathe  his  flesh,  then  he 
shall  bear  his  iniquity." 

These  passages  explicitly  state  the  reason  for  the 
prohibition  by  God  of  the  use  of  blood  for  food  to  be 
the  fact  that,  as  the  vehicle  of  the  life,  it  has  been 


102  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

appointed  by  Him  as  the  means  of  expiation  for  sin 
upon  the  altar.  And  the  reason  for  the  prohibition  of 
the  fat  is  similar ;  namely,  its  appropriation  for  God 
upon  the  altar,  as  in  the  peace-offerings,  the  sin-offerings, 
and  the  guilt-offerings  ;  '^  all  the  fat  is  the  Lord's." 

Thus  the  Israelite,  by  these  tv/o  prohibitions,  was  to 
be  continually  reminded,  so  often  as  he  partook  of  his 
daily  food,  of  two  things :  by  the  one,  of  atonement  by 
the  blood  as  the  only  ground  of  acceptance ;  and  by 
the  other,  of  God's  claim  on  the  man  redeemed  by  the 
blood,  for  the  consecration  of  his  best.  Not  only  so, 
but  by  the  frequent  repetition,  and  still  more  by  the 
heavy  penalty  attached  to  the  violation  of  these  laws, 
he  was  reminded  of  the  exceeding  importance  that 
these  two  things  had  in  the  mind  of  God.  If  he  eat 
the  blood  of  any  animal  claimed  by  God  for  the  altar, 
he  should  be  cut  oif  from  his  people  ;  that  is,  outlawed, 
and  cut  off  from  all  covenant  privilege  as  a  citizen  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  in  Israel.  And  even  though  the 
blood  were  that  of  the  beast  taken  in  the  chase,  still 
ceremonial  purification  was  required  as  the  condition 
of  resuming  his  covenant  position. 

Nothing,  doubtless,  seems  to  most  Christians  of  our 
day  more  remote  from  practical  religion  than  these 
regulations  touching  the  fat  and  the  blood,  which  are 
brought  before  us  with  such  fulness  in  the  law  of  the 
peace-offering  and  elsewhere.  And  yet  nothing  is  of 
more  present-day  importance  in  this  law  than  the  prin- 
ciples which  underlie  these  regulations.  For  as  with 
type,  so  with  antitype.  No  less  essential  to  the  admis- 
sion of  the  sinful  man  into  that  blessed  fellowship  with 
a  reconciled  God,  which  the  peace-offermg  typified,  is 
the  recognition  of  the  supreme  sanctity  of  the  precious 
sacrificial  blood  of  the  Lamb  of  God ;  no  less  essential 


xvii.  io-i6.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  103 

to  the  life  of  happy  communion  with  God,  is  the  ready 
consecration  of  the  best  fruit  of  our  life  to  Him. 

Surely,  both  of  these,  and  especially  the  first,  are 
truths  for  our  time.  For  no  observing  man  can  fail  to 
recognise  the  very  ominous  fact  that  a  constantly  in- 
creasing number,  even  of  professed  preachers  of  the 
Gospel,  in  so  many  words  refuse  to  recognise  the  place 
which  propitiatory  blood  has  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 
and  to  admit  its  pre-eminent  sanctity  as  consisting  in 
this,  that  it  was  given  on  the  altar  to  make  atonement 
for  our  souls.  Nor  has  the  present  generation  out- 
grown the  need  of  the  other  reminder  touching  the 
consecration  of  the  best  to  the  Lord.  How  many  there 
are,  comfortable,  easy-going  Christians,  whose  principle 
— if  one  might  speak  in  the  idiom  of  the  Mosaic  law — 
would  rather  seem  to  be,  ever  to  give  the  lean  to  God, 
and  keep  the  fat,  the  best  fruit  of  their  life  and  activity, 
for  themselves !  Such  need  to  be  most  urgently  and 
solemnly  reminded  that  in  spirit  the  warning  against  the 
eating  of  the  blood  and  the  fat  is  in  full  force.  It  was 
written  of  such  as  should  break  this  law,  "  that  soul 
shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people."  And  so  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (x.  26-29)  we  find  one  of  its 
most  solemn  warnings  directed  to  those  who  '*  count 
this  blood  of  the  covenant,"  the  blood  of  Christ,  "  an 
unholy  {i.e.y  common)  thing;"  as  exposed  by  this,  their 
undervaluation  of  the  sanctity  of  the  blood,  to  a  "  sorer 
punishment"  than  overtook  him  that  "set  at  nought 
Moses'  law,"  even  the  retribution  of  Him  who  said, 
"Vengeance  is  Mine  ;  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord." 

And  so  in  this  law  of  the  peace-offerings,  which 
ordains  the  conditions  of  the  holy  feast  of  fellowship 
with  a  reconciled  God,  we  find  these  two  things  made 
fundamental  in  the  symbolism :  full  recognition  of  the 


I04  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


sanctity  of  the  blood  as  that  which  atones  for  the  soul ; 
and  the  full  consecration  of  the  redeemed  and  pardoned 
soul  to  the  Lord.  So  was  it  in  the  symbol ;  and  so 
shall  it  be  when  the  sacrificial  feast  shall  at  last  receive 
its  most  complete  fulfilment  in  the  communion  of  the 
redeemed  with  Christ  in  glory.  There  will  be  no  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  then  and  there,  either  as  to  the 
transcendent  value  of  that  precious  blood  which  made 
atonement,  or  as  to  the  full  consecration  which  such  a 
redemption  requires  from  the  redeemed. 

Thank-Offerings,  Vows,  AND  Freewill-Offerings. 

vii.  11-21. 
"And  this  is  the  law  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace-ofFerings  which  one 
shall  offer  unto  the  Lord,  If  he  offer  it  for  a  thanksgiving,  then 
he  shall  offer  with  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving  unleavened  cakes 
mingled  with  oil,  and  unleavened  wafers  anointed  with  oil,  and  cakes 
mingled  with  oil,  of  fine  flour  soaked.  With  cakes  of  leavened  bread 
he  shall  offer  his  oblation  with  the  sacrifice  of  his  peace-offerings  for 
thanksgiving.  And  of  it  he  shall  offer  one  out  of  each  oblation  for  an 
beave-offering  unto  the  Lord  ;  it  shall  be  the  priest's  that  sprinkleth 
the  blood  of  the  peace-offerings.  And  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  his 
peace-offerings  for  thanksgiving  shall  be  eaten  on  the  day  oi  his 
oblation  ;  he  shall  not  leave  any  of  it  until  the  morning.  But  if  the 
sacrifice  of  his  oblation  be  a  vow,  or  a  freewill  offering,  it  shall  be 
eaten  on  the  day  that  he  offereth  his  sacrifice  :  and  on  the  morrow 
that  which  remaineth  of  it  shall  be  eaten  :  but  that  which  remaineth 
of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  on  the  third  day  shall  be  burnt  with  fire. 
And  if  any  of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  his  peace-offerings  be  eaten 
on  the  third  day,  it  shall  not  be  accepted,  neither  shall  it  be  imputed 
unto  him  that  offereth  it :  it  shall  be  an  abomination,  and  the  soul  that 
cateth  of  it  shall  bear  his  iniquity.  And  the  flesh  that  toucheth  any 
unclean  thing  shall  not  be  eaten ;  it  shall  be  burnt  with  fire.  And  as 
for  the  flesh,  everyone  that  is  clean  shall  eat  thereof:  but  the  soul 
that  eateth  of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace-offerings,  that  pertain 
unto  the  Lord,  having  his  uncleanness  upon  him,  that  soul  shall  be 
cut  off  from  his  people.  And  when  any  one  shall  touch  any  unclean 
thing,  the  uncleanness  of  man,  or  an  unclean  beast,  or  any  unclean 
abomination,  and  eat  of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace-offerings, 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people." 


vii.  11-21.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  105 

According  to  this  supplemental  section  on  the  law  of 
the  peace-offerings,  these  were  of  three  kinds ;  namely, 
"  sacrifices  of  thanksgiving,"  **  vows,"  and  freewill- 
offerings."  The  first  were  offered  in  token  of  gratitude 
for  mercies  received  ;  as  in  Psalm  cxvi.  16,  17,  where 
we  read  :  "  Thou  hast  loosed  my  bonds  ;  I  will  offer  to 
Thee  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving."  The  second,  like 
these,  were  offered  also  in  grateful  return  for  prayer 
answered  and  mercy  received,  but  with  the  difference 
that  they  were  promised  before,  upon  the  condition  of 
the  prayer  for  mercy  being  granted.  Lastly,  the  free- 
will-offerings were  those  which  had  no  special  occasion, 
but  were  merely  the  spontaneous  expression  of  the 
love  of  the  offerer  to  God,  and  his  desire  to  live  in 
friendship  and  fellowship  with  Him.  It  is  apparently 
these  freewill-offerings  that  we  are  to  recognise  in  the 
many  instances  recorded  where  the  peace-offering  was 
presented  in  connection  with  supplication  for  special 
help  and  favour  from  God ;  as,  e.g.y  when  (Judges  xx.  26) 
Israel  supplicated  mercy  from  God  after  their  disastrous 
defeat  in  the  civil  war  with  the  tribe  of  Benjamin ;  and 
when  David  entreated  the  Lord  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  25)  for 
the  staying  of  the  plague  in  Israel. 

With  not  only  the  thank-offering,  but  all  peace- 
offerings,  as  is  clear  from  Numb.  xv.  2-4,  a  full  meal- 
offering,  consisting  of  three  kinds  of  unleavened  cakes, 
was  to  be  offered,  of  each  of  which,  one  was  to  be 
presented  as  a  heave-offering,  with  the  heave-shoulder 
of  the  sacrifice,  to  the  Lord  (vii.  12).  For  the  sacrificial 
feast,  in  which  the  offerer,  his  family,  and  friends  were 
to  partake,  he  was  also  to  bring  cakes  of  leavened 
bread,  which,  however,  though  eaten  before  God  by  the 
offerer,  might  not  be  presented  unto  God  for  a  heave- 
offering,  nor  come  upon  the  altar  (ver.   13). 


lo6  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS 

From  what  we  have  already  seen,  the  spiritual  mean- 
ing of  this  will  be  clear.  Thus  in  symbol  the  Israelite 
offered  unto  God,  with  his  life,  the  fruit  of  the  labour 
of  his  hands,  in  gratitude  to  Him,  and  expressed  his 
happy  consciousness  of  friendship  and  fellowship  with 
God  through  atonement,  by  feasting  before  Him.  The 
leavened  bread  is  offered  simply,  as  Bahr  suggests,  as 
the  usual  accompaniment  to  a  feast ;  though  regard  is 
still  had  to  the  fact,  never  once  forgotten  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, that  leaven  is  nevertheless  an  element  and  symbol 
of  corruption ;  so  that  however  the  reconciled  Israelite 
may  eat  his  leavened  bread  before  God,  yet  it  cannot  be 
allowed  to  come  upon  the  altar  of  the  Most  Holy  One. 

Two  slight  differences  appear  in  the  ritual  for  the 
different  kinds  of  peace-offerings.  First,  in  the  case 
of  the  freewill-offering,  a  single  exception  is  allowed 
to  the  general  rule  that  the  victim  must  be  without 
blemish,  in  the  permission  to  offer  what,  otherwise 
perfect,  might  have  "  anything  superfluous  or  lacking  " 
in  its  parts  (xxii.  23)  ;  a  circumstance  which  could  not 
affect  its  fitness  as  the  symbol  of  spiritual  food.  For 
a  vow  (and,  we  may  infer,  for  a  thank-offering  also) 
such  a  victim,  however,  could  not  be  offered  ;  evidently 
because  it  would  seem  peculiarly  unsuitable,  where  the 
object  of  the  offering  was  to  make  in  some  sense  a 
return  for  the  always  perfect  and  most  gracious  gifts 
of  God,  that  anything  else  than  the  absolutely  perfect 
should  be  offered.  In  the  case  of  the  thank-offering, 
again,  an  exception  is  made  to  the  general  regulation 
permitting  the  eating  of  the  offering  on  the  first  and 
second  days,  requiring  that  all  be  eaten  on  the  day  that 
it  is  presented,  or  else  be  burnt  with  fire  (vii.  15). 
We  need  seek  for  no  spiritual  meaning  in  this.  A 
sufficient  reason  for  this  special  restriction  in  this  case 


vii.  II-2I.]  THE  PEACE-OFFERING.  107 

is  probably  to  be  found  in  the  consideration  that  as 
this  was  the  most  common  variety  of  the  offering,  there 
was  the  most  danger  that  the  flesh,  by  some  oversight, 
might  be  kept  too  long.  The  flesh  of  the  victim  offered 
to  God,  the  type  of  the  Victim  of  Calvary,  must  on  no 
account  be  allowed  to  see  corruption ;  and  to  this  end 
every  needed  precaution  must  be  taken,  that  by  no 
chance  it  shall  remain  unconsumed  on  the  third  day. 

It  is  easy  to  connect  the  special  characteristics  of 
these  several  varieties  of  the  peace-offering  with  the 
great  Antitype.  So  may  we  use  Him  as  our  thank- 
offering;  for  what  more  fitting  as  an  expression  of 
gratitude  and  love  to  God  for  mercies  received,  than 
renewed  and  special  fellowship  with  Him  through 
feeding  upon  Christ  as  the  slain  Lamb  ?  So  also 
we  may  thus  use  Christ  in  our  vows ;  as  when,  suppli- 
cating mercy,  we  promise  and  engage  that  if  our  prayer 
be  heard  we  will  renewedly  consecrate  our  service  to 
the  Lord,  as  in  the  meal-offering,  and  anew  enter  into 
life-giving  fellowship  with  Him  through  feeding  by 
faith  on  the  flesh  of  the  Lord.  And  it  is  beautifully 
hinted  in  the  permission  of  the  use  of  leaven  in  this 
feast  of  the  peace-offering,  that  while  the  work  of  the 
believer,  as  presented  to  God  in  grateful  acknowledg- 
ment of  His  mercies,  is  ever  affected  with  the  taint  of 
his  native  corruption,  so  that  it  cannot  come  upon  the 
altar  where  satisfaction  is  made  for  sin,  yet  God  is 
graciously  pleased,  for  the  sake  of  the  great  Sacrifice, 
to  accept  such  imperfect  service  offered  to  Him,  and 
make  it  in  turn  a  blessing  to  us,  as  we  offer  it  in  His 
presence,  rejoicing  in  the  work  of  our  hands  before  Him. 

But  there  was  one  condition  without  which  the  Israelite 
could  not  have  communion  with  God  in  the  peace- 
offering.     He  must  be  clean !  even  as  the  flesh  of  the 


io8  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

peace-offering  must  be  clean  also.  There  must  be  in 
him  nothing  which  should  interrupt  covenant  fellow- 
ship with  God  ;  as  nothing  in  the  type  which  should 
make  it  an  unfit  symbol  of  the  Antitype.  For  it  was 
ordered  (vii.  19-21),  as  regards  every  possible  occasion 
of  uncleanness,  thus :  *'  The  flesh  that  toucheth  any 
unclean  thing  shall  not  be  eaten  ;  it  shall  be  burnt  with 
fire.  As  for  the  flesh,  every  one  that  is  clean  shall  eat 
thereof ;  but  the  soul  that  eateth  of  the  flesh  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  peace-offerings,  that  pertain  unto  the  Lord,  having 
his  uncleanness  upon  him,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off 
from  his  people.  And  when  any  one  shall  touch  any 
unclean  thing,  the  uncleanness  of  man,  or  an  unclean 
beast,  or  any  unclean  abomination^  and  eat  of  the  flesh 
of  the  sacrifice  of  peace-offerings,  that  soul  shall  be  cut 
off  from  his  people." 

In  such  cases,  he  must  first  go  and  purify  himself, 
as  provided  in  the  law ;  and  then,  and  then  only, 
presume  to  come  to  eat  before  the  Lord.  And  so 
Israel  was  ever  impressively  reminded  that  he  who 
would  have  fellowship  with  God,  and  eat  in  happy 
fellowship  with  Him  at  His  table,  must  keep  himself 
pure.  So  by  the  spirit  of  these  commands  are  we  no 
less  warned  that  we  take  not  encouragement  from  God's 
grace,  in  providing  for  us  the  flesh  of  the  Lamb  as  our 
food,  to  be  careless  in  walk  and  life.  If  we  will  use 
Christ  as  our  peace-offering,  we  must  keep  ourselves 
"  unspotted  from  the  world ; "  must  hate  "  even  the 
garment  spotted  by  the  flesh,"  remembering  ever  that 
it  is  written  in  the  New  Testament  (i  Peter  i.  15,  16), 
with  direct  reference  to  the  typical  law  of  Leviticus  : 
*'As  He  which  called  you  is  holy,  be  ye  yourselves 
also  holy  in  all  manner  of  Hving  ;  because  it  is  written, 
Ye  shall  be  holy ;  for  I  am  holy." 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE  SIN-OFFERING. 
Lev.  iv.  1-35. 

BOTH  in  the  burnt-offering  and  in  the  peace- 
offering,  Israel  was  taught,  as  we  are,  that  all 
consecration  and  all  fellowship  with  God  must  begin 
with,  and  ever  depends  upon,  atonement  made  for  sin. 
But  this  was  not  the  dominant  thought  in  either  of 
these  offerings  ;  neither  did  the  atonement,  as  made 
in  these,  have  reference  to  particular  acts  of  sin.  For 
such,  these  offerings  were  never  prescribed.  They 
remind  us  therefore  of  the  necessity  of  atonement, 
not  so  much  for  what  we  do  or  fail  to  do,  as  for  what 
we  are. 

But  the  sin  even  ot  true  believers,  whether  then  or 
now,  is  more  than  sin  of  nature.  The  true  Israelite 
was  liable  to  be  overtaken  in  some  overt  act  of  sin  ; 
and  for  all  such  cases  was  ordained,  in  this  section 
of  the  law  (iv.  i-v.  13),  the  sin-offering;  an  offering 
which  should  bring  out  into  sole  and  peculiar  prominence 
the  thought  revealed  in  other  sacrifices  more  imperfectly, 
that  in  order  to  pardon  of  sin,  there  must  be  expiation. 
There  was  indeed  a  limitation  to  the  application  of  this 
offering ;  for  if  a  man,  in  those  days,  sinned  wilfully, 
presumptuously,  stubbornly,  or,  as  the  phrase  is,  "  with 
a  high  hand,"  there  was  no  provision  made  in  the  law 


no  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

for  his  restoration  to  covenant  standing.  "  He  that 
despised  Moses'  law  died  without  mercy  under  two  or 
three  witnesses  ; "  he  was  "  cut  off  from  his  people." 
But  for  sins  of  a  lesser  grade,  such  as  resulted  not 
from  a  spirit  of  wilful  rebellion  against  God,  but  were 
mitigated  in  their  guilt  by  various  reasons,  especially 
ignorance,  rashness,  or  inadvertence,  God  made  provi- 
sion, in  a  typical  way,  for  their  removal  by  means  of 
the  atonement  of  the  sin-  and  the  guilt-offerings.  By 
means  of  these,  accompanied  also  with  full  restitution 
of  the  wrong  done,  when  such  restitution  was  possible, 
the  guilty  one  might  be  restored  in  those  days  to  his 
place  as  an  accepted  citizen  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
No  part  of  the  Levitical  law  is  more  full  of  deep, 
heart-searching  truth  than  the  law  of  the  sin-offering. 
First  of  all,  it  is  of  consequence  to  observe  that  the 
sins  for  which  this  chief  atoning  sacrifice  was  appointed, 
were,  for  the  most  part,  sins  of  ignorance.  For  so  runs 
the  general  statement  with  which  this  section  opens 
(ver.  2) :  "  If  any  one  shall  sin  unwittingly,  in  any  of 
the  things  which  the  Lord  hath  commanded  not  to  be 
done,  and  shall  do  any  of  them."  And  to  these  are 
afterwards  added  sins  committed  through  rashness, 
the  result  rather  of  heat  and  hastiness  of  spirit  than 
of  deliberate  purpose  of  sin  ;  as,  for  instance,  in  chap. 
V.  4  :  "  Whatsoever  it  be  that  a  man  shall  utter  rashly 
with  an  oath,  and  it  be  hid  from  him."  Besides  these, 
in  the  same  section  (vv.  1-4),  as  also  in  all  the  cases 
mentioned  under  the  guilt-offering,  and  the  special 
instance  of  a  wrong  done  to  a  slave-girl  (xix.  21),  a 
number  of  additional  offences  are  mentioned  which  all 
seem  to  have  their  special  palliation,  not  indeed  in  the 
ignorance  of  the  sinner,  but  in  the  nature  of  the  acts 
themselves,  as  admitting  of  reparation.     For  all  such 


V.  1-35]  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  in 

it  was  also  ordained  that  the  offender  should  bring  a 
sin-  (or  a  guilt-)  offering,  and  that  by  this,  atonement 
being  made  for  him,  his  sin  might  be  forgiven. 

All  this  must  have  brought  before  Israel,  and  is 
meant  to  bring  before  us,  the  absolute  equity  of  God 
in  dealing  with  His  creatures.  We  think  often  of  His 
stern  justice  in  that  He  so  unfailingly  takes  note  of 
every  sin.  But  here  we  may  learn  also  to  observe  His 
equity  in  that  He  notes  no  less  carefully  every  circum- 
stance that  may  palliate  our  sin.  We  thankfully  recog- 
nise in  these  words  the  spirit  of  Him  of  whom  it  was 
said  (Heb.  v.  2,  marg.)  that  in  the  days  of  His  flesh 
He  could  "reasonably  bear  with  the  ignorant;"  and 
who  said  concerning  those  who  know  not  their  Master's 
will  and  do  it  not  (Luke  xii.  48),  that  their  "  stripes " 
shall  be  '^  few ; "  and  who,  again,  with  equal  justice 
and  mercy,  said  of  His  disciples'  fault  in  Gethsemane 
(Matt.  xxvi.  41),  '*The  spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but 
the  flesh  is  weak."  We  do  well  to  note  this.  For  in 
these  days  we  hear  it  often  charged  against  the  holy 
religion  of  Christ,  that  it  represents  God  as  essentially 
and  horribly  unjust  in  consigning  all  unbelievers  to  one 
and  the  same  unvarying  punishment,  the  eternal  lake 
of  fire ;  and  as  thus  making  no  difference  between  those 
who  have  sinned  against  the  utmost  light  and  know- 
ledge, wilfully  and  inexcusably,  and  those  who  may 
have  sinned  through  ignorance,  or  weakness  of  the 
flesh.  To  such  charges  as  these  we  have  simply  to 
answer  that  neither  in  the  Old  Testament  nor  in  the 
New  is  God  so  revealed.  We  may  come  back  to  this 
book  of  Leviticus,  and  declare  that  even  in  those  days 
when  law  reigned,  and  grace  and  love  were  less  clearly 
revealed  than  now,  God  made  a  difference,  a  great 
difference,  between  some  sins  and  others ;  He  visited, 


112  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

no  doubt,  wilful  and  defiant  sin  with  condign  punish- 
ment; but,  on  the  other  hand,  no  less  justly  than 
mercifully,  He  considered  also  every  circumstance 
which  could  lessen  guilt,  and  ordained  a  gracious 
provision  for  expiation  and  forgiveness.  The  God 
revealed  in  Leviticus,  Hke  the  God  revealed  in  the 
Gospel,  the  God  "  with  whom  we  have  to  do,"  is  then 
no  hard  and  unreasonable  tyrant,  but  a  most  just  and 
equitable  King.  He  is  no  less  the  Most  Just,  that  He 
is  the  Most  Holy;  but,  rather,  because  He  is  most 
holy,  is  He  therefore  most  just.  And  because  God  is 
such  a  God,  in  the  New  Testament  also  it  is  plainly 
said  that  ignorance,  as  it  extenuates  guilt,  shall  also 
ensure  mitigation  of  penalty  ;  and  in  the  Old  Testament, 
that  while  he  who  sins  presumptuously  and  with  a  high 
hand  against  God,  shall  ^*  die  without  mercy  under  two 
or  three  witnesses,"  on  the  other  hand,  he  who  sins 
unwittingly,  or  in  some  sudden  rash  impulse,  doing 
that  of  which  he  afterward  truly  repents ;  or  who, 
again,  has  sinned,  if  knowingly,  still  in  such  a  way 
as  admits  of  some  adequate  reparation  of  the  wrong, 
— all  these  things  shall  be  judged  palliation  of  his 
guilt ;  and  if  he  confess  his  sin,  and  make  all  possible 
reparation  for  it,  then,  if  he  present  a  sin-  or  a  guilt- 
offering,  atonement  may  therewith  be  made,  and  the 
sinner  be  forgiven. 

This  then  is  the  first  thing  which  the  law  concerning 
the  sin-offering  brings  before  us :  it  calls  our  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  heavenly  King  and  Judge  of  men  is 
righteous  in  all  His  ways,  and  therefore  will  ever  make 
all  the  allowance  that  strict  justice  and  righteousness 
demand,  for  whatever  may  in  any  way  palliate  our  guilt. 

But  none  the  less  for  this  do  we  need  also  to  heed 
another  intensely  practical  truth  which  the  law  of  the 


iv.  I-3S]  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  113 

sin-ofFering  brings  before  us :  namely,  that  while  igno- 
rance or  other  circumstances  may  palliate  guilt,  they  do 
not  and  cannot  nullify  it.  We  may  have  sinned  without 
a  suspicion  that  we  were  sinning,  but  here  we  are 
taught  that  there  can  be  no  pardon  without  a  sin- 
offering.  We  may  have  sinned  through  weakness  or 
sudden  passion,  but  still  sin  is  sin,  and  we  must  have 
a  sin-offering  before  we  can  be  forgiven. 

We  may  observe,  in  passing,  the  bearing  of  this 
teaching  of  the  law  on  the  question  so  much  discussed 
in  our  day,  as  to  the  responsibility  of  the  heathen  for 
the  sins  which  they  commit  through  ignorance.  In 
so  far  as  their  ignorance  is  not  wilful  and  avoidable, 
it  doubtless  greatly  diminishes  their  guilt ;  and  the 
Lord  Himself  has  said  of  such  that  their  stripes  shall 
be  few.  And  yet  more  than  this  He  does  not  say. 
Except  we  are  prepared  to  cast  aside  the  teaching  alike 
of  Leviticus  and  the  Gospels,  it  is  certain  that  their 
ignorance  does  not  cancel  their  guilt.  That  the  igno- 
rance of  any  one  concerning  moral  law  can  secure  his 
exemption  from  the  obligation  to  suffer  for  his  sin,  is 
not  only  against  the  teaching  of  all  Scripture,  but  is 
also  contradicted  by  all  that  we  can  see  about  us  of 
God's  government  of  the  world.  For  when  does  God 
ever  suspend  the  operation  of  physical  laws,  because 
the  man  who  violates  them  does  not  know  that  he  is 
breaking  them  ?  And  so  also,  will  we  but  open  our 
eyes,  we  may  see  that  it  is  with  moral  law.  The 
heathen,  for  example,  are  ignorant  of  many  moral  laws  ; 
but  do  they  therefore  escape  the  terrible  consequences 
of  their  law-breaking,  even  in  this  present  life,  where 
we  can  see  for  ourselves  how  God  is  dealing  with 
them  ?  And  is  there  any  reason  to  think  it  will  be 
different  in  the  life  hereafter  ? 

8 


114  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

Does  it  seem  harsh  that  men  should  be  punished 
even  for  sins  of  ignorance,  and  pardon  be  impossible, 
even  for  these,  without  atonement  ?  It  would  not  seem 
so,  would  men  but  think  more  deeply.  For  beyond  all 
question,  the  ignorance  of  men  as  to  the  fundamental 
law  of  God,  to  love  Him  with  all  the  heart,  and  our 
neighbour  as  ourselves,  which  is  the  sum  of  all  law, 
has  its  reason,  not  in  any  lack  of  light,  but  in  the  evil 
heart  of  man,  who  everywhere  and  always,  until  he  is 
regenerated,  loves  self  more  than  he  loves  God.  The 
words  of  Christ  (John  iii.  20)  apply :  "  He  that  doeth 
evil  Cometh  not  to  the  light ; "  not  even  to  the  light 
of  nature. 

And  yet,  one  who  should  look  only  at  this  chapter 
might  rejoin  to  this,  that  the  Israelite  was  only  obliged 
to  bring  a  sin-offering,  when  afterward  he  came  to  the 
knowledge  of  his  sin  as  sin ;  but,  in  case  he  never 
came  to  that  knowledge,  was  not  then  his  sin  passed 
by  without  an  atoning  sacrifice  ?  To  this  question,  the 
ordinance  which  we  find  in  chapter  xvi.  is  the  decisive 
answer.  For  therein  it  was  provided  that  once  every 
year  a  very  solemn  sin-offering  should  be  offered  by 
the  high  priest,  for  all  the  multitudinous  sins  of  Israel, 
which  were  not  atoned  for  in  the  special  sin-offerings 
of  each  day.  Hence  it  is  strictly  true  that  no  sin  in 
Israel  was  ever  passed  over  without  either  penalty  or 
shedding  of  blood.  And  so  the  law  keeps  it  ever 
before  us  that  our  unconsciousness  of  sinning  does  not 
alter  the  fact  of  sin,  or  the  fact  of  guilt,  nor  remove  the 
obligation  to  suffer  because  of  sin ;  and  that  even  the 
sin  of  which  we  are  quite  ignorant,  interrupts  man's 
peace  with  God  and  harmony  with  him.  Thus  the 
best  of  us  must  take  as  our  own  the  words  of  the 
Apostle  Paul  (i  Cor.  iv.  4,  R.V.)  :  ''I  know  nothing 


iv.  1-35.]  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  115 

against  myself;  yet  am  I  not  hereby  justified  ;  He  that 
judgeth  me  is  the  Lord." 

Nor  does  the  testimony  of  this  law  end  here.  We 
are  by  it  taught  that  the  guilt  of  sins  unrecognised  as 
sins  at  the  time  of  their  committal,  cannot  be  cancelled 
merely  by  penitent  confession  when  they  become  known. 
Confession  must  indeed  be  made,  according  to  the  law, 
as  one  condition  of  pardon,  but,  besides  this,  the  guilty 
man  must  bring  his  sin-offering. 

What  truths  can  be  more  momentous  and  vital  than 
these !  Can  any  one  say,  in  the  light  of  such  a  reve- 
lation, that  all  in  this  ancient  law  of  the  sin-offering 
is  now  obsolete,  and  of  no  concern  to  us  ?  For  how 
many  there  are  who  are  resting  all  their  hopes  for 
the  future  on  the  fact  that  they  have  sinned,  if  at  all, 
then  ignorantly;  or  that  they  "have  meant  to  do 
right ; "  or  that  they  have  confessed  the  sin  when  it 
was  known,  and  have  been  very  sorry.  And  yet,  if 
this  law  teach  anything,  it  teaches  that  this  is  a  fatal 
mistake,  and  that  such  hopes  rest  on  a  foundation  of 
sand.  If  we  would  be  forgiven,  we  must  indeed  con- 
fess our  sin  and  we  must  repent ;  but  this  is  not  enough. 
We  must  have  a  sin-offering;  we  must  make  use  ot 
the  great  Sin-OfFering  which  that  of  Leviticus  typified ; 
we  must  tell  our  compassionate  High  Priest  how  in 
ignorance,  or  in  the  rashness  of  some  unholy,  over- 
mastering impulse,  we  sinned,  and  commit  our  case  to 
Him,  that  He  may  apply  the  precious  blood  in  our 
behalf  with  God. 

It  is  a  third  impressive  fact,  that  after  we  include  all 
the  cases  for  which  the  sin-offering  was  provided,  there 
still  remain  many  sins  for  the  forgiveness  of  which 
no  provision  was  made.  It  was  ordered  elsewhere,  for 
instance   (Numb.    xxxv.    31-33)   that    no  satisfaction, 


Ii6  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS 

should  be  taken  for  the  Hfe  of  a  murderer.  He  might 
confess  and  bewail  his  sin,  and  be  never  so  sorry,  but 
there  was  no  help  for  him  ;  he  must  die  the  death.  So 
was  it  also  with  blasphemy ;  so  with  adultery,  and 
with  many  other  crimes.  This  exclusion  of  so  many 
cases  from  the  merciful  provision  of  the  typical  offering 
had  a  meaning.  It  was  intended,  not  only  to  emphasise 
to  the  conscience  the  aggravated  wickedness  of  such 
crimes,  but  also  to  develop  in  Israel  the  sense  of  need 
for  a  more  adequate  provision,  a  better  sacrifice  than 
any  the  Levitical  law  could  offer ;  blood  which  should 
cleanse,  not  merely  in  a  ceremonial  and  sacramental 
way,  but  really  and  effectively  ;  and  not  only  from  some 
sins,  but  from  all  sins. 

The  law  of  the  sin-offering  is  introduced  by  phrase- 
ology different  from  that  which  is  used  in  the  case  of 
the  preceding  offerings.  In  the  case  of  each  of  these, 
the  language  used  implies  that  the  Israelites  were 
familiar  with  the  offering  before  its  incorporation  into 
the  Levitical  sacrificial  system.  The  sin-offering,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  introduced  as  a  new  thing.  And 
such,  indeed,  it  was.  While,  as  we  have  seen,  each  of 
the  offerings  before  ordered  had  been  known  and  used, 
both  by  the  Shemitic  and  the  other  nations,  since 
long  before  the  days  of  Moses,  before  this  time  there 
is  no  mention  anywhere,  in  Scripture  or  out  of  it,  of  a 
sacrifice  corresponding  to  the  sin-  or  the  guilt-offering. 
The  significance  of  this  fact  is  apparent  so  soon  as  we 
observe  what  was  the  distinctive  conception  of  the  sin- 
offering,  as  contrasted  with  the  other  offerings.  With- 
out question,  it  was  the  idea  of  expiation  of  guilt  by 
the  sacrifice  of  a  substituted  victim.  This  idea,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  indeed  not  absent  from  the  other 
bloody  offerings  ;  but  in  those  its  place  was  secondary 


iv.  1-35.]  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  117 


and  subordinate.  In  the  ritual  of  the  sin-offering,  on 
the  contrary,  this  idea  was  brought  out  into  almost 
solitary  prominence ; — sin  pardoned  on  the  ground  of 
expiation  made  through  the  presentation  to  God  of  the 
blood  of  an  innocent  victim. 

The  introduction  of  this  new  sacrifice,  then,  marked 
the  fact  that  the  spiritual  training  of  man,  of  Israel  in 
particular,  herewith  entered  on  a  new  stadium ;  which 
was  to  be  distinguished  by  the  development,  in  a  degree 
to  that  time  without  a  precedent,  of  the  sense  of  sin  and 
of  guilt,  and  the  need  therefore  of  atonement  in  order 
to  pardon.  This  need  had  not  indeed  been  unfelt 
before ;  but  never  in  any  ritual  had  it  received  so 
full  expression.  Not  only  is  the  idea  of  expiation  by 
the  shedding  of  blood  almost  the  only  thought  repre- 
sented in  the  ritual  of  the  offering,  but  in  the  order 
afterward  prescribed  for  the  different  sacrifices,  the  sin- 
offering,  in  all  cases  where  others  were  offered,  must 
go  before  them  all ;  before  the  burnt-offering,  the  meal- 
offering,  the  peace-offering.  So  again,  this  new  law 
insists  upon  expiation  even  for  those  sins  which  have 
the  utmost  possible  palliation  and  excuse,  in  that  at  the 
time  of  their  committal  the  sinner  knew  them  not  as 
sins ;  and  thus  teaches  that  even  these  so  fatally 
interrupt  fellowship  with  the  holy  God,  that  only  such 
expiation  can  restore  the  broken  harmony.  What  a 
revelation  was  this  law,  of  the  way  in  which  God 
regards  sin !  and  of  the  extremity,  in  consequence,  of 
the  sinner's  need  ! 

Most  instructive,  too,  were  the  circumstances  under 
which  this  new  offering,  with  such  a  special  pur- 
pose, embodying  such  a  revelation  of  the  extent  of 
human  guilt  and  responsibility,  was  first  ordained.  For 
its  appointment  followed  quickly  upon  the  tremendous 


u8  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

revelation  of  the  consuming  holiness  of  God  upon 
Mount  Sinai.  It  was  in  the  light  of  the  holy  mount, 
quaking  and  flaming  with  fire,  that  the  eye  of  Moses 
was  opened  to  receive  from  God  this  revelation  of  His 
will,  and  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  appoint  for 
Israel,  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  an  offering  which  should 
differ  from  all  other  offerings  in  this — that  it  should  hold 
forth  to  Israel,  in  solitary  and  unprecedented  prominence, 
this  one  thought,  that  "without  shedding  of  blood 
there  is  no  remission  of  sin,"  not  even  of  sins  which 
are  not  known  as  sins  at  the  time  of  their  committal. 

Our  own  generation,  and  even  the  Church  of  to-day, 
greatly  needs  to  consider  the  significance  of  this  fact. 
The  spirit  of  our  age  is  much  more  inclined  to  magnify 
the  greatness  and  majesty  of  man,  than  the  infinite 
greatness  and  holy  majesty  of  God.  Hence  many  talk 
lightly  of  atonement,  and  cannot  admit  its  necessity  to 
the  pardon  of  sin.  But  can  we  doubt,  with  this  narra- 
tive before  us,  that  if  men  saw  God  more  clearly  as  He 
is,  there  would  be  less  talk  of  this  kind  ?  When  Moses 
saw  God  on  Mount  Sinai,  he  came  down  to  ordain  a 
sin-offering  even  for  sins  of  ignorance  !  And  nothing 
is  more  certain,  as  a  fact  of  human  experience  in  all 
ages,  than  this,  that  the  more  clearly  men  have  per- 
ceived the  unapproachable  holiness  and  righteousness 
of  God,  the  more  clearly  they  have  seen  that  expiation 
of  our  sins,  even  of  our  sins  of  ignorance,  by  atoning 
blood,  is  the  most  necessary  and  fundamental  of  all 
conditions,  if  we  will  have  pardon  of  sin  and  peace  with 
a  Holy  God. 

Man  is  indeed  slow  to  learn  this  lesson  of  the  sin- 
offering.  It  is  quite  too  humbling  and  abasing  to 
our  natural,  self-satisfied  pride,  to  be  readily  received. 
This  is  strikingly  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  it  is  not 


iv.  1-35-]  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  119 

until  late  in  Israel's  history  that  the  sin-offering  is 
mentioned  in  the  sacred  record ;  while  even  from  that 
first  mention  till  the  Exile,  it  is  mentioned  only  rarely. 
This  fact  is  indeed  often  in  our  day  held  up  as  evidence 
that  the  sin-offering  was  not  of  Mosaic  origin,  but  a 
priestly  invention  of  much  later  days.  But  the  fact  is 
quite  as  well  accounted  for  by  the  spiritual  obtuseness 
of  Israel.  The  whole  narrative  shows  that  they  were 
a  people  hard  of  heart  and  slow  to  learn  the  solemn 
lessons  of  Sinai ;  slow  to  apprehend  the  holiness  of 
God,  and  the  profound  spiritual  truth  set  forth  in  the 
institution  of  the  sin-offering.  And  yet  it  was  not 
wholly  unobserved,  nor  did  every  individual  fail  to 
learn  its  lessons.  Nowhere  in  heathen  literature  do 
we  find  such  a  profound  conviction  of  sin,  such  a  sense 
of  responsibility  even  for  sins  of  ignorance,  as  in  some 
of  the  earliest  Psalms,  and  the  earlier  prophets.  The 
self-excusing  which  so  often  marks  the  heathen  con- 
fessions, finds  no  place  in  the  confessions  of  those 
Old  Testament  believers,  brought  up  under  the  moral 
training  of  that  Sinaitic  law  which  had  the  sin-offering 
as  its  supreme  expression  on  this  subject.  "  Search  me, 
O  God,  and  try  my  heart ;  and  see  if  there  be  in  me 
any  wicked  way  "  (Psalm  cxxxix.  23,  24) ;  "  Cleanse 
Thou  me  from  secret  sins  "  (Psalm  xix.  12);  "  Against 
Thee  only  have  I  sinned,  and  done  this  evil  in  Thy 
sight "  (Psalm  li.  4).  Such  words  as  these,  with  many 
other  like  prayers  and  confessions,  bear  witness  to  the 
deepening  sense  of  sin,  till  at  the  last  the  sin-offering 
teaches,  as  its  own  chief  lesson,  its  own  inadequacy  for 
the  removal  of  guilt,  in  those  words  of  the  prophetic 
Psalm,  (xl.  6)  from  the  man  who  mourned  iniquities 
more  than  the  hairs  of  his  head:  '* Sin-offering  Thou 
hast  not  required." 


120  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS, 


But,  according  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  are 
to  regard  David  in  these  words,  speaking  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  typifying  Christ;  for  we  thus  read,  x.  5-10 : 
**  When  He  cometh  into  the  world  He  saith,  Sacrifice 
and  offering  Thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body  didst  Thou 
prepare  for  Me ;  in  whole  burnt-offerings  and  sin- 
offerings  Thou  hadst  no  pleasure.  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I 
am  come  (in  the  roll  of  the  book  it  is  written  of  Me) 
to  do  Thy  will,  O  God." 

Which  words  are  then  expounded  thus :  "  Saying 
above,  Sacrifices  and  offerings,  and  whole  burnt-offerings 
and  sacrifices  for  sin  Thou  wouldest  not,  neither  hadst 
pleasure  therein  (the  which  are  offered  according  to  the 
law) ;  then  hath  He  said,  Lo,  I  am  come  to  do  Thy  will. 
He  taketh  away  the  first  that  He  may  establish  the 
second.  By  which  will  we  have  been  sanctified  through 
the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all." 

And  so,  as  the  deepest  lesson  of  the  sin-offering,  we 
are  taught  to  see  in  it  a  type  and  prophecy  of  Christ, 
as  the  true  and  one  eternally  effectual  sin-offering  for 
the  sins  of  His  people ;  who.  Himself  at  once  High 
Priest  and  Victim,  offering  Himself  for  us,  perfects  us 
for  ever,  as  the  old  sin-offering  could  not,  giving  us 
therefore  *^  boldness  to  enter  into  the  holy  place  by  the 
blood  of  Jesus."  May  we  all  have  grace  by  faith  to 
receive  and  learn  this  deepest  lesson  of  this  ordinance, 
and  thus  in  the  law  of  the  sin-offering  discover  Him 
who  in  His  person  and  work  became  the  Fulfiller  of 
this  law. 

Graded  Responsibility. 

iv.  3»  I3»  14,  22,  23,  27,  28. 

"  If  the  anointed  priest  shall  sin  so  as  to  bring  guilt  on  the  people ; 
then  let  him  offer  for  his  sin,  which  he  hath  sinned,  a  young  bullock 


iv.  1-35-]  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  121 

without  blemish  unto  the  Lord  for  a  sin-ofFering.  .  .  .  And  if  the 
whole  congregation  of  Israel  shall  err,  and  the  thing  be  hid  from  the 
eyes  of  the  assembly,  and  they  have  done  any  of  the  things  which 
the  Lord  hath  commanded  not  to  be  done,  and  are  guilty ;  when  the 
sin  wherein  they  have  sinned  is  known,  then  the  assembly  shall  offer 
a  young  bullock  for  a  sin-offering,  and  bring  it  before  the  tent  of 
meeting.  .  .  .  When  a  ruler  sinneth,  and  doeth  unwittingly  any  one 
of  all  the  things  which  the  Lord  his  God  hath  commanded  not  to  be 
done,  and  is  guilty ;  if  his  sin,  wherein  he  hath  sinned,  be  made  known 
to  him,  he  shall  bring  for  his  oblation  a  goat,  a  male  without  blemish^ 
.  .  .  And  if  any  one  of  the  common  people  sin  unwittingly,  in  doing 
any  of  the  things  which  the  Lord  hath  commanded  not  to  be  done, 
and  be  guilty ;  if  his  sin,  which  he  hath  sinned,  be  made  known  to 
him,  then  he  shall  bring  for  his  oblation  a  goat,  a  female  without 
blemish,  for  his  sin  which  he  hath  sinned." 

The  law  concerning  the  sin-offering  is  given  in 
four  sections,  of  which  the  last,  again,  is  divided  into 
two  parts,  separated  by  the  division  of  the  chapter. 
These  four  sections  respectively  treat  of — first,  the  law 
of  the  sin-offering  for  the  "anointed  priest"  (vv. 
3-12) ;  secondly,  the  law  for  the  offering  for  the  whole 
congregation  (vv.  13-21);  thirdly,  that  for  a  ruler 
(vv.  22-26) ;  and  lastly,  the  law  for  an  offering  made 
by  a  private  person,  one  of  "the  common  people'* 
(iv.  27-v.  16).  In  this  last  section  we  have,  first,  the 
general  law  (iv.  27-35),  and  then  are  added  (v.  I- 1 6) 
special  prescriptions  having  reference  to  various  circum- 
stances under  which  a  sin-offering  should  be  offered  by 
one  of  the  people.  Under  this  last  head  are  mentioned 
first,  as  requiring  a  sin-offering,  in  addition  to  sins  of 
ignorance  or  inadvertence,  which  only  were  mentioned 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  also  sins  due  to  rashness  or 
weakness  (vv.  1-4) ;  and  then  are  appointed,  in  the 
second  place,  certain  variations  in  the  material  of  the 
offering,  allowed  out  of  regard  to  the  various  ability  of 
different  offerers  (vv.  5-16). 

In  the  law  as  given  in  chap,  iv.,  it  is  to  be  observed 


122  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

that  the  selection  of  the  victim  prescribed  is  determined 
by  the  position  of  the  persons  who  might  have  occasion 
to  present  the  offering.  For  the  whole  congregation, 
the  victim  must  be  a  bullock,  the  most  valuable  of  all ; 
for  the  high  priest,  as  the  highest  religious  official  of 
the  nation,  and  appointed  also  to  represent  them  before 
God,  it  must  also  be  a  bullock.  For  the  civil  ruler,  the 
offering  must  be  a  he-goat — an  offering  of  a  value  less 
than  that  of  the  victim  ordered  for  the  high  priest, 
but  greater  than  that  of  those  which  were  prescribed 
for  the  common  people.  For  these,  a  variety  of  offer- 
ings were  appointed,  according  to  their  several  ability. 
If  possible,  it  must  be  a  female  goat  or  lamb,  or,  if  the 
worshipper  could  not  bring  that,  then  two  turtle  doves, 
or  two  young  pigeons.  If  too  poor  to  bring  even  this 
small  offering,  then  it  was  appointed  that,  as  a  substi- 
tute for  the  bloody  offering,  he  might  bring  an  offering 
of  fine  flour,  without  oil  or  frankincense,  to  be  burnt 
upon  the  altar. 

Evidently,  then,  the  choice  of  the  victim  was  deter- 
mined by  two  considerations :  first,  the  rank  of  the 
person  who  sinned,  and,  secondly,  his  ability.  As 
regards  the  former  point,  the  law  as  to  the  victim  for 
the  sin-offering  was  this :  the  higher  the  theocratic 
rank  of  the  sinning  person  might  be,  the  more  costly 
offering  he  must  bring.  No  one  can  well  miss  of  per- 
ceiving the  meaning  of  this.  The  guilt  of  any  sin  in 
God's  sight  is  proportioned  to  the  rank  and  station  of 
the  offender.  What  truth  could  be  of  more  practical 
and  personal  concern  to  all  than  this  ? 

In  applying  this  principle,  the  law  of  the  sin-offering 
teaches,  first,  that  the  guilt  of  any  sin  is  the  heaviest, 
when  it  is  committed  by  one  who  is  placed  in  a  position 
of  religious  authority.     For  this  graded  law  is  headed 


iv.  I-35-]  ^^^  SIN-OFFERING.  123 

by  the  case  of  the  sin  of  the  anointed  priest,  that  is, 
the  high  priest,  the  highest  functionary  in  the  nation. 

We  read  (ver.  3)  :  ^*  If  the  anointed  priest  shall  sin  so 
as  to  bring  guilt  on  the  people,  then  let  him  offer  for 
his  sin  which  he  hath  committed,  a  young  bullock  with- 
out blemish,  unto  the  Lord,  for  a  sin-offering." 

That  is,  the  high  priest,  although  a  single  individual, 
if  he  sin,  must  bring  as  large  and  valuable  an  offering 
as  is  required  from  the  whole  congregation.  For  this 
law  there  are  two  evident  reasons.  The  first  is  found  in 
the  fact  that  in  Israel  the  high  priest  represented  before 
God  the  entire  nation.  When  he  sinned  it  was  as  if 
the  whole  nation  sinned  in  him.  So  it  is  said  that 
by  his  sin  he  "  brings  guilt  on  the  people  *' — a  very 
weighty  matter.  And  this  suggests  a  second  reason 
for  the  costly  offering  that  was  required  from  him. 
The  consequences  of  the  sin  of  one  in  such  a  high 
position  of  religious  authority  must,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  be  much  more  serious  and  far-reaching  than  in  the 
case  of  any  other  person. 

And  here  we  have  another  lesson  as  pertinent  to 
our  time  as  to  those  days.  As  the  high  priest,  so,  in 
modern  time,  the  bishop,  minister,  or  elder,  is  ordained 
as  an  officer  in  matters  of  religion,  to  act  for  and  with 
men  in  the  things  of  God.  For  the  proper  administra- 
tion of  this  high  trust,  how  indispensable  that  such  a 
one  shall  take  heed  to  maintain  unbroken  fellowship 
with  God !  Any  shortcoming  here  is  sure  to  impair  by 
so  much  the  spiritual  value  of  his  own  ministrations 
for  the  people  to  whom  he  ministers.  And  this  evil 
consequence  of  any  unfaithfulness  of  his  is  the  more 
certain  to  follow,  because,  of  all  the  members  of  the 
community,  his  example  has  the  widest  and  most  effec- 
tive influence;  in  whatever  that   example   be  bad    or 


124  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

defective,  it  is  sure  to  do  mischief  in  exact  proportion 
to  his  exalted  station.  If  then  such  a  one  sin,  the  case 
is  very  grave,  and  his  guilt  proportionately  heavy. 

This  very  momentous  fact  is  brought  before  us  in 
an  impressive  v^'ay  in  the  Nev^  Testament,  where,  in 
the  epistles  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia  (Rev.  ii.  iii,), 
it  is  "the  angel  of  the  church,"  the  presiding  officer  of 
the  church  in  each  city,  who  is  held  responsible  for  the 
spiritual  state  of  those  committed  to  his  charge.  No 
wonder  that  the  Apostle  James  wrote  (James  iii.  i) : 
"Be  not  many  teachers,  my  brethren,  knowing  that  we 
shall  receive  heavier  judgment."  Well  may  every  true- 
hearted  minister  of  Christ's  Church  tremble,  as  here  in 
the  law  of  the  sin-offering  he  reads  how  the  sin  of  the 
officer  of  religion  may  bring  guilt,  not  only  on  himself, 
but  also  "  on  the  whole  people  "  !  Well  may  he  cry 
out  with  the  Apostle  Paul  (2  Cor.  ii.  16):  "Who  is 
sufficient  for  these  things  ? "  and,  like  him,  beseech 
those  to  whom  he  ministers,  "  Brethren,  pray  for  us  ! " 

With  the  sin  of  the  high  priest  is  ranked  that  of  the 
congregation,  or  the  collective  nation.  It  is  written 
(vv.  13,  14):  "If  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel 
shall  err,  and  the  thing  be  hid  from  the  eyes  of  the 
assembly,  and  they  have  done  any  one  of  the  things 
which  the  Lord  hath  commanded  not  to  be  done,  and 
are  guilty,  then  the  assembly  shall  offer  a  young 
bullock  for  a  sin-offering." 

Thus  Israel  was  taught  by  this  law,  as  we  are,  that 
responsibility  attaches  not  only  to  each  individual 
person,  but  also  to  associations  of  individuals  in  their 
corporate  character,  as  nations,  communities,  and — we 
may  add — all  Societies  and  Corporations,  whether 
secular  or  religious.  Let  us  emphasise  it  to  our  own 
consciences,  as  another  of  the  fundamental  lessons  of 


iv.  1-35.]  77/£  SIN-OFFERING.  125 

this  law  :  there  is  individual  sin ;  there  is  also  such  a 
thing  as  a  sin  by  ^'  the  whole  congregation."  In  other 
words,  God  holds  nations,  communities — in  a  word,  all 
associations  and  combinations  of  men  for  whatever 
purpose,  no  less  under  obligation  in  their  corporate 
capacity  to  keep  His  law  than  as  individuals,  and  will 
count  them  guilty  if  they  break  it,  even  through 
ignorance. 

Never  has  a  generation  needed  this  reminder  more 
than  our  own.  The  political  and  social  principles  which, 
since  the  French  Revolution  in  the  end  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, have  been,  year  by  year,  more  and  more  generally 
accepted  among  the  nations  of  Christendom,  are  every- 
where tending  to  the  avowed  or  practical  denial  of  this 
most  important  truth.  It  is  a  maxim  ever  more  and 
more  extensively  accepted  as  almost  axiomatic  in  our 
modern  democratic  communities,  that  religion  is  wholly 
a  concern  of  the  individual ;  and  that  a  nation  or  com- 
munity, as  such,  should  make  no  distinction  between 
various  religions  as  false  or  true,  but  maintain  an 
absolute  neutrality,  even  between  Christianity  and 
idolatry,  or  theism  and  atheism.  It  should  take  little 
thought  to  see  that  this  modern  maxim  stands  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  principle  assumed  in  this  law  of  the 
sin-offering;  namely,  that  a  community  or  nation  is  as 
truly  and  directl}^  responsible  to  God  as  the  individual 
in  the  nation.  But  this  corporate  responsibility  the 
spirit  of  the  age  squarely  denies. 

Not  that  all,  indeed,  in  our  modern  so-called  Chri-s 
tian  nations  have  come  to  this.  But  no  one  will  deny 
that  this  is  the  mind  of  the  vanguard  of  nineteenth  cen- 
tury liberalism  in  religion  and  politics.  Many  of  our 
political  leaders  in  all  lands  make  no.  secret  of  their 
views  on  the  subject.     A  purely  secular  state  is  every- 


126  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

where  held  up,  and  that  with  great  plausibility  and 
persuasiveness,  as  the  ideal  of  political  government ; 
the  goal  to  the  attainment  of  which  all  good  citizens 
should  unite  their  efforts.  And,  indeed,  in  some  parts 
of  Christendom  the  complete  attainment  of  this  evil 
ideal  seems  not  far  away. 

It  is  not  strange,  indeed,  to  see  atheists,  agnostics, 
and  others  who  deny  the  Christian  faith,  maintaining  this 
position  ;  but  when  we  hear  men  who  call  themselves 
Christians — in  many  cases,  even  Christian  ministers 
— advocating,  in  one  form  or  another,  governmental 
neutrality  in  religion  as  the  only  right  basis  of 
government,  one  may  well  be  amazed.  For  Christians 
are  supposed  to  accept  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  law 
of  faith  and  of  morals,  private  and  public  ;  and  where 
in  all  the  Scripture  will  any  one  find  such  an  attitude  of 
any  nation  or  people  mentioned,  but  to  be  condemned 
and  threatened  with  the  judgment  of  God  ? 

Will  any  one  venture  to  say  that  this  teaching  of 
the  law  of  the  sin-offering  was  only  intended,  like  the 
offering  itself,  for  the  old  Hebrews  ?  Is  it  not  rather 
the  constant  and  most  emphatic  teaching  of  the  whole 
Scriptures,  that  God  dealt  with  all  the  ancient  Gentile 
nations  on  the  same  principle  ?  The  history  which 
records  the  overthrow  of  those  old  nations  and  empires 
does  so,  even  professedly,  for  the  express  purpose  of 
calling  the  attention  of  men  in  all  ages  to  this  principle, 
that  God  deals  with  all  nations  as  under  obligation  to 
recognise  Himself  as  King  of  nations,  and  submit  in 
all  things  to  His  authority.  So  it  was  in  the  case  of 
Moab,  of  Ammon,  of  Nineveh,  and  Babylon  ;  in  regard 
to  each  of  which  we  are  told,  in  so  many  words,  that  it 
was  because  they  refused  to  recognise  this  principle  of 
national  responsibility  to  the  one  true  God,  which  was 


iv  1-35.]  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  127 

brought  before  Israel  in  this  part  of  the  law  of  the 
sin-offering,  that  the  Divine  judgment  came  upon  them 
in  their  utter  national  overthrow.  How  awfully  plain, 
again,  is  the  language  of  the  second  Psalm  on  this 
same  subject,  where  it  is  precisely  this  national  repu- 
diation of  the  supreme  authority  of  God  and  of  His 
Christ,  so  increasingly  common  in  our  day,  which  is 
named  as  the  ground  of  the  derisive  judgment  of  God, 
and  is  made  the  occasion  of  exhorting  all  nations,  not 
merely  to  belief  in  God,  but  also  to  the  obedient 
recognition  of  His  only-begotten  Son,  the  Messiah,  as 
the  only  possible  means  of  escaping  the  future  kindling 
of  His  wrath. 

No  graver  sign  of  our  times  could  perhaps  be  named 
than  just  this  universal  tendency  in  Christendom,  in 
one  way  or  another,  to  repudiate  that  corporate  re- 
sponsibility to  God  which  is  assumed  as  the  basis  of 
this  part  of  the  law  of  the  sin-offering.  There  can 
be  no  worse  omen  for  the  future  of  an  individual  than 
the  denial  of  his  obligations  to  God  and  to  His  Son, 
our  Saviour ;  and  there  can  be  no  worse  sign  for  the 
future  of  Christendom, .or  of  any  nation  in  Christendom, 
than  the  partial  or  entire  denial  of  national  obligation 
to  God  and  to  His  Christ.  What  it  shall  mean  in  the 
end,  what  is  the  future  toward  which  these  popular 
modern  principles  are  conducting  the  nations,  is  revealed 
in  Scripture  with  startling  clearness,  in  the  warning 
that  the  world  is  yet  to  see  one  who  shall  be  in  a 
peculiar  and  eminent  sense  "  the  Antichrist "  (i  John 
ii.  18);  who  shall  deny  both  the  Father  and  Son,  and 
be  "  the  Lawless  One,"  and  the  "  Man  of  Sin,"  in  that  He 
shall  ^'  set  Himself  forth  as  God  "  (2  Thess.  ii.  3-8)  ; 
to  whom  authority  will  be  given  "  over  every  tribe,  and 
people,  and  tongue,  and  nation  "  (Rev.  xiii.  7). 


128  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

The  nation,  then,  as  such,  is  held  responsible  to 
God  !  So  stands  the  law.  And,  therefore,  in  Israel, 
if  the  nation  should  sin,  it  was  ordained  that  they  also, 
like  the  high  priest,  should  bring  a  bullock  for  a  sin- 
offering,  the  most  costly  victim  that  was  ever  prescribed. 
This  was  so  ordained,  no  doubt,  in  part  because  of 
Israel's  own  priestly  station  as  a  "  kingdom  of  priests 
and  a  holy  nation,"  exalted  to  a  position  of  peculiar 
dignity  and  privilege  before  God,  that  they  might 
mediate  the  blessings  of  redemption  to  all  nations. 
It  was  because  of  this  fact  that,  if  they  sinned,  their 
guilt  was  peculiarly  heavy. 

The  principle,  however,  is  of  present-day  application. 
Privilege  is  the  measure  of  responsibility,  no  less  now 
than  then,  for  nations  as  well  as  for  individuals.  Thus 
national  sin,  on  the  part  of  the  British  or  American 
nation,  or  indeed  with  any  of  the  so-called  Christian 
nations,  is  certainly  judged  by  God  to  be  a  much  more 
evil  thing  than  the  same  sin  if  committed,  for  example, 
by  the  Chinese  or  Turkish  nation,  who  have  had  no 
such  degree  of  Gospel  light  and  knowledge. 

And  the  law  in  this  case  evidently  also  implies  that 
sin  is  aggravated  in  proportion  to  its  universality.  It 
is  bad,  for  example,  if  in  a  community  one  man  commit 
adultery,  forsaking  his  own  wife ;  but  it  argues  a  con- 
dition of  things  far  worse  when  the  violation  of  the 
marriage  relation  becomes  common ;  when  the  question 
can  actually  be  held  open  for  discussion  whether  mar- 
riage, as  a  permanent  union  between  one  man  and  one 
woman,  be  not  "a  failure,"  as  debated  not  long  ago 
in  a  leading  London  paper ;  and  when,  as  in  many  of 
the  United  States  of  America  and  other  countries  of 
modern  Christendom,  laws  are  enacted  for  the  express 
purpose  of  legalising  the  violation  of  Christ's  law  of 


V.  1-35]  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  129 

marriage,  and  thus  shielding  adulterers  and  adulteresses 
from  the  condign  punishment  their  crime  deserves.  It 
is  bad,  again,  when  individuals  in  a  State  teach  doctrines 
subversive  of  morality ;  but  it  evidently  argues  a  far 
deeper  depravation  of  morals  when  a  whole  community 
unite  in  accepting,  endowing,  and  upholding  such  in  their 
work. 

Next  in  order  comes  the  case  of  the  civil  ruler.  For 
him  it  was  ordered  :  **  When  a  ruler  sinneth,  and  doeth 
unwittingly  any  of  the  things  which  the  Lord  his  God 
hath  commanded  not  to  be  done,  and  is  guilty;  if  his 
sin,  wherein  he  hath  sinned,  be  made  known  to  him, 
he  shall  bring  for  his  oblation  a  goat,  a  male  without 
blemish  "  (ver.  22).  Thus,  the  ruler  was  to  bring  a 
victim  of  less  value  than  the  high-priest  or  the  collec- 
tive congregation ;  but  it  must  still  be  of  more  value 
than  that  of  a  private  person  ;  for  his  responsibility, 
if  less  than  that  of  the  officer  of  religion,  is  distinctly 
greater  than  that  of  a  man  in  private  life. 

And  here  is  a  lesson  for  modern  politicians,  no  less 
than  for  rulers  of  the  olden  time  in  Israel.  While 
there  are  many  in  our  Parliaments  and  like  governing 
bodies  in  Christendom  who  cast  their  every  vote  with 
the  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes,  yet,  if  there  be  any 
truth  in  the  general  opinion  of  men  upon  this  subject, 
there  are  many  in  such  places  who,  in  their  voting, 
have  before  their  eyes  the  fear  of  party  more  than 
the  fear  of  God ;  and  who,  when  a  question  comes 
before  them,  first  of  all  consider,  not  what  would  the 
law  of  absolute  righteousness,  the  law  of  God,  require, 
but  how  will  a  vote,  one  way  or  the  other,  in  this 
matter,  be  likely  to  affect  their  party  ?  Such  certainly 
need  to  be  emphatically  reminded  of  this  part  of  the  law 
of  the  sin-offering,  which  held  the  civil  ruler  specially 

9 


I30  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

responsible  to  God  for  the  execution  of  his  trust.  For 
so  it  is  still ;  God  has  not  abdicated  His  throne  in 
favour  of  the  people,  nor  will  He  waive  His  crown-rights 
out  of  deference  to  the  political  necessities  of  a  party. 

Nor  is  it  only  those  who  sin  in  this  particular  way 
who  need  the  reminder  of  their  personal  responsibility 
to  God.     All  need  it  who  either  are  or  may  be  called 
to  places  of  greater  or  less  governmental  responsibility ; 
and  it  is  those  who  are  the  most  worthy  of  such  trust 
who  will  be  the  first  to  acknowledge  their  need  of  this 
warning.     For  in  all  times  those  who  have  been  lifted 
to  positions  of  political  power  have  been  under  peculiar 
temptation  to  forget  God,  and  become  reckless  of  their 
obligation  to  Him  as   His  ministers.     But  under  the 
conditions  of  modern  life,  in  many  countries  of  Chris- 
tendom,  this   is  true  as  perhaps  never  before.      For 
now  it  has  come  to  pass  that,  in  most  modern  com- 
munities, those  who  make  and  execute  laws  hold  their 
tenure  of  office  at  the  pleasure  of  a   motley  army  of 
voters,  Protestants  and  Romanists,  Jews,  atheists,  and 
what  not,  a  large  part  of  whom  care  not  the  least  for 
the  will  of  God   in  civil  government,   as  revealed  in 
Holy  Scripture.     Under  such  conditions,  the  place  of 
the  civil  ruler  becomes  one  of  such  special  trial  and 
temptation  that  we  do  well  to  remember  in  our  inter- 
cessions, with  peculiar  sympathy,  all  who  in  such  posi- 
tions are  seeking  to  serve  supremely,  not  their  party, 
but  their  God,  and  so  best  serve  their  country.     It  is  no 
wonder  that  the  temptation  too  often  to  many  becomes 
overpowering,    to    silence    conscience    with    plausible 
sophistries,  and   to   use   their   office   to   carry  out   in 
legislation,  instead  of  the  will  of  God,  the  will  of  the 
people,  or  rather,  of  that  particular  party  which  put 
them  in  power. 


iv.  1-35.]  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  131 

Yet  the  great  principle  affirmed  in  this  law  of  the 
sin-offering  stands,  and  will  stand  for  ever,  and  to  it  all 
will  do  well  to  take  heed ;  namely,  that  God  will  hold 
the  civil  ruler  responsible,  and  more  heavily  responsible 
than  any  private  person,  for  any  sin  he  may  commit, 
and  especially  for  any  violation  of  law  in  any  matter 
committed  to  his  trust.  And  there  is  abundant  reason 
for  this.  For  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God, 
and  in  His  providence  are  placed  in  authority;  not  as 
the  modern  notion  is,  for  the  purpose  of  executing  the 
will  of  their  constituents,  whatever  that  will  may  be, 
but  rather  the  unchangeable  will  of  the  Most  Holy  God, 
the  Ruler  of  all  nations,  so  far  as  revealed,  concerning 
the  civil  and  social  relations  of  men.  Nor  must  it  be 
forgotten  that  this  eminent  responsibility  attaches  to 
them,  not  only  in  their  official  acts,  but  in  all  their  acts 
as  individuals.  No  distinction  is  made  as  to  the  sin 
for  which  the  ruler  must  bring  his  sin-offering,  whether 
public  and  official,  or  private  and  personal.  Of  what- 
soever kind  the  sin  may  be,  if  committed  by  a  ruler, 
God  holds  him  specially  responsible,  as  being  a  ruler ; 
and  reckons  the  guilt  of  that  sin,  even  if  a  private 
offence,  to  be  heavier  than  if  it  had  been  committed  by 
one  of  the  common  people.  And  this,  for  the  evident 
reason  that,  as  in  the  case  of  the  high  priest,  his 
exalted  position  gives  his  example  double  influence  and 
effect.  Thus,  in  all  ages  and  all  lands,  a  corrupt  king 
or  nobility  have  made  a  corrupt  court ;  and  a  corrupt 
court  or  corrupt  legislators  are  sure  to  demoralise  all 
the  lower  ranks  of  society.  But  however  it  may  be 
under  the  governments  of  men,  under  the  equitable 
government  of  the  Most  Holy  God,  high  station  can  give 
no  immunity  to  sin.  And  in  the  day  to  come,  when  the 
Great  Assize  is  set,  there  will  be   many  who  in  this 


132  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

world  stood  high  in  authority,  who  will  learn,  in  the 
tremendous  decisions  of  that  day,  if  not  before,  that  a 
just  God  reckoned  the  guilt  of  their  sins  and  crimes  in 
exact  proportion  to  their  rank  and  station. 

Last  of  all,  in  this  chapter,  comes  the  law  of  the  sin- 
offering  for  one  of  the  common  people,  of  which  the 
first  part  is  given  vv.  27-35.  The  victim  which  is 
appointed  for  those  who  are  best  able  to  give,  a  female 
goat,  is  yet  of  less  value  than  those  ordered  in  the 
cases  before  given ;  for  the  responsibility  and  guilt  in 
the  case  of  such  is  less.  The  first  prescription  for  a  sin- 
offering  by  one  of  the  common  people,  is  introduced  by 
these  words  : — *^  If  any  one  of  the  common  people  sin 
unwittingly,  in  doing  any  of  the  things  which  the  Lord 
hath  commanded  not  to  be  done,  and  be  guilty ;  if  his 
sin,  which  he  hath  sinned,  be  made  known  to  him,  then 
he  shall  bring  for  his  oblation  a  goat,  a  female  without 
blemish,  for  his  sin  which  he  hath  sinned  "  (vv.  27,  28). 

In  case  of  his  inability  to  bring  so  much  as  this, 
offerings  of  lesser  value  are  authorised  in  the  section 
following  (v.  5-13),  to  which  we  shall  attend  hereafter. 

Meanwhile  it  is  suggestive  to  observe  that  this  part 
of  the  law  is  expanded  more  fully  than  any  other  part 
of  the  law  of  the  sin-offering.  We  are  hereby  reminded 
that  if  none  are  so  high  as  to  be  above  the  reach  of 
the  judgment  of  God,  but  are  held  in  that  proportion 
strictly  responsible  for  their  sin ;  so,  on  the  other  hand, 
none  are  of  station  so  low  that  their  sins  shall  therefore 
be  overlooked.  The  common  people,  in  all  lands,  are 
the  great  majority  of  the  population ;  but  no  one  is  to 
imagine  that,  because  he  is  a  single  individual,  of  no 
importance  in  a  multitude,  he  shall  therefore,  if  he  sin, 
escape  the  Divine  eye,  as  it  were,  in  a  crowd.  Not  so. 
We  may  be   of  the   very  lowest   social   station ;    the 


IV.  1-35-]  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  133 


provision  in  chapter  v.  1 1  regards  the  case  of  such 
as  might  be  so  poor  as  that  they  could  not  even  buy 
two  doves.  Men  may  judge  the  doings  of  such  poor 
folk  of  little  or  no  consequence ;  but  not  so  God. 
With  Him  is  no  respect  of  persons,  either  of  rich  or 
poor.  From  all  alike,  from  the  anointed  high  priest, 
who  ministers  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  down  to  the 
common  people,  and  among  these,  again,  from  the 
highest  down  to  the  very  lowest,  poorest,  and  meanest 
in  rank,  is  demanded,  even  for  a  sin  of  ignorance,  a 
sin-offering  for  atonement. 

What  a  solemn  lesson  we  have  herein  concerning 
the  character  of  God  !  His  omniscience,  which  not  only 
notes  the  sin  of  those  who  are  in  some  conspicuous 
position,  but  also  each  individual  sin  of  the  lowest  of 
the  people  !  His  absolute  equity,  exactly  and  accurately 
grading  responsibility  for  sin  committed,  in  each  case, 
according  to  the  rank  and  influence  of  him  who  com- 
mits it !  His  infinite  holiness,  which  cannot  pass  by 
without  expiation  even  the  transient  act  or-  word  of 
rash  hands  or  lips,  not  even  the  sin  not  known  as  sin 
by  the  sinner ;  a  holiness  which,  in  a  word,  unchange- 
ably and  unalterably  requires,  from  every  human  being, 
nothing  less  than  absolute  moral  perfection  like  His 
own  1 


CHAPTER   VII. 

THE  RITUAL   OF  THE  SIN-OFFERING. 
Lev.  iv.  4-35  ;  v.  1-13;  vi.  24-30, 

ACCORDING  to  the  Authorised  Version  (v.  6,  7), 
it  might  seem  that  the  section,  v.  1-13,  referred 
not  to  the  sin-offering,  but  to  the  guilt-offering,  Hke  the 
latter  part  of  the  chapter;  but,  as  suggested  in  the 
margin  of  the  Revised  Version,  in  these  verses  we  may 
properly  read,  instead  of  '^guilt-offering,"  "for  his 
guilt."  That  the  latter  rendering  is  to  be  preferred  is 
clear  when  we  observe  that  in  vv.  6,  7,  9  this  offering 
is  called  a  sin-offering ;  that,  everywhere  else,  the 
victim  for  the  guilt-offering  is  a  ram ;  and,  finally,  that 
the  estimation  of  a  money  value  for  the  victim,  which  is 
the  most  characteristic  feature  of  the  guilt-offering,  is 
absent  from  all  the  offerings  described  in  these  verses. 
We  may  safely  take  it  therefore  as  certain  that  the  mar- 
ginal reading  should  be  adopted  in  ver.  6,  so  that  it 
will  read,  ''  he  shall  bring  for  his  guilt  unto  the  Lord  ; " 
and  understand  the  section  to  contain  a  further  develop- 
ment of  the  law  of  the  sin-offering.  In  the  law  of  the 
preceding  chapter  we  have  the  direction  for  the  sin- 
offering  as  graded  with  reference  to  the  rank  and  station 
of  the  offerer ;  in  this  section  we  have  the  law  for  the 
sin-offering  for  the  common  people,  as  graded  with 
reference  to  the  ability  of  the  offerer. 


iv.  4-v.  13]     THE  RITUAL   OF  THE  SIN-OFFERING.         135 

The  specifications  (v.  1-5)  indicate  several  cases 
under  which  one  of  the  common  people  was  required  to 
bring  a  sin-ofFering  as  the  condition  of  forgiveness. 
As  an  exhaustive  list  would  be  impossible,  those  named 
are  taken  as  illustrations.  The  instances  selected 
are  significant  as  extending  the  class  of  offences  for 
which  atonement  could  be  made  by  a  sin-offering, 
beyond  the  limits  of  sins  of  inadvertence  as  given  in  the 
previous  chapter.  For  however  some  cases  come  under 
this  head,  we  cannot  so  reckon  sins  of  rashness  (ver.  4), 
and  still  less,  the  failure  of  the  witness  placed  under 
oath  to  tell  the  whole  truth  as  he  knows  it.  And  herein 
it  is  graciously  intimated  that  it  is  in  the  heart  of  God 
to  multiply  His  pardons ;  and,  on  condition  of  the 
presentation  of  a  sin-offering,  to  forgive  also  those 
sins  in  palliation  of  which  no  such  excuse  as  inad- 
vertence or  ignorance  can  be  pleaded.  It  is  a  faint 
foreshadowing,  in  the  law  concerning  the  type,  of  that 
which  should  afterward  be  declared  concerning  the 
great  Antitype  (i  John  i.  7),  "The  blood  of  Jesus  .  .  . 
cleanseth  from  all  sin." 

When  we  look  now  at  the  various  prescriptions  re- 
garding the  ritual  of  the  offering  which  are  given  in 
this  and  the  foregoing  chapter,  it  is  plain  that  the 
numerous  variations  from  the  ritual  of  the  other  sacri- 
fices were  intended  to  withdraw  the  thought  of  the 
sinner  from  all  other  aspects  in  which  sacrifice  might  be 
regarded,  and  centre  his  mind  upon  the  one  thought  of 
sacrifice  as  expiating  sin,  through  the  substitution  of  an 
innocent  life  for  the  guilty.  In  many  particulars,  indeed, 
the  ritual  agrees  with  that  of  the  sacrifices  before  pre- 
scribed. The  victim  must  be  brought  by  the  guilty 
person  to  be  offered  to  God  by  the  priest ;  he  must,  as 
in  other  cases  of  bloody  offerings,  then  lay  his  hand  on 


136  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


the  head  of  the  victim,  and  then  (a  particular  not  men- 
tioned in  the  other  cases)  he  must  confess  the  sin 
which  he  has  committed,  and  then  and  thus  entrust  the 
victim  to  the  priest,  that  he  may  apply  its  blood  for 
him  in  atonement  before  God.  The  priest  then  slays 
the  victim,  and  now  comes  that  part  of  the  ceremonial 
which  by  its  variations  from  the  law  of  other  offerings 
is  emphasised  as  the  most  central  and  significant  in  this 
sacrifice. 

The  Sprinkling  of  the  Blood. 

iv.  6,  7,  16-18,  25,  30;  V.  9. 

"  And  the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger  in  the  blood,  and  sprinkle  ct 
the  blood  seven  times  before  the  Lord,  before  the  veil  of  the  sanctuary. 
And  the  priest  shall  put  of  the  blood  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar  of 
sweet  incense  before  the  Lord,  v^rhich  is  in  the  tent  of  meeting ;  and 
all  the  blood  of  the  bullock  shall  he  pour  out  at  the  base  of  the  altar 
of  burnt  offering,  which  is  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting.  .  .  • 
And  the  anointed  priest  shall  bring  of  the  blood  of  the  bullock  to  the 
tent  of  meeting:  and  the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger  in  the  blood, 
and  sprinkle  it  seven  times  before  the  Lord,  before  the  veil.  And 
he  shall  put  of  the  blood  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar  which  is  before 
the  Lord,  that  is  in  the  tent  of  meeting,  and  all  the  blood  shall  he  pour 
out  at  the  base  of  the  altar  of  burnt  offering,  which  is  at  the  door  of 
the  tent  of  meeting.  .  .  .  And  the  priest  shall  take  of  the  blood  of  the 
sin  offering  with  his  finger,  and  put  it  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar  of 
burnt  offering,  and  the  blood  thereof  shall  he  pour  out  at  the  base  of 
the  altar  of  burnt  offering.  .  .  .  And  the  priest  shall  take  of  the  blood 
thereof  with  his  finger,  and  put  it  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar  of 
burnt  offering,  and  all  the  blood  thereof  shall  he  pour  out  at  the  base 
of  the  altar.  .  .  .  And  he  shall  sprinkle  of  the  blood  of  the  sin  offering 
upon  the  side  of  the  altar  ;  and  the  rest  of  the  blood  shall  be  drained  out 
at  the  base  of  the  altar  :  it  is  a  sin  offering." 

In  the  case  of  the  burnt-offering  and  of  the  peace- 
offering,  in  which  the  idea  of  expiation,  although  not 
absent,  yet  occupied  a  secondary  place  in  their  ethical 
intent,  it  sufficed  that  the  blood  of  the  victim,  by  whom- 
soever brought,   be  applied  to  the  sides  of  the  altar. 


iv.4-v.  13.]     THE  RITUAL  OF  THE  SIN-OFFERING.         137 

But  in  the  sin-offering,  the  blood  must  not  only  be 
sprinkled  on  the  sides  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  but, 
even  in  the  case  of  the  common  people,  be  applied  to 
the  horns  of  the  altar,  its  most  conspicuous  and,  in  a 
sense,  most  sacred  part.  In  the  case  of  a  sin  com- 
mitted by  the  whole  congregation,  even  this  is  not 
enough ;  the  blood  must  be  brought  even  into  the 
Holy  Place,  be  applied  to  the  horns  of  the  altar  of 
incense,  and  be  sprinkled  seven  times  before  the  Lord 
before  the  veil  which  hung  immediately  before  the  mercy 
seat  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  the  place  of  the  Shekinah 
glory.  And  in  the  great  sin-offering  of  the  high  priest 
once  a  year  for  the  sins  of  all  the  people,  yet  more 
was  required.  The  blood  was  to  be  taken  even  within 
the  veil,  and  be  sprinkled  on  the  mercy  seat  itself  over 
the  tables  of  the  broken  law. 

These  several  cases,  according  to  the  symbolism  of 
these  several  parts  of  the  tabernacle  differ,  in  that  aton- 
ing blood  is  brought  ever  more  and  more  nearly  into 
the  immediate  presence  of  God.  The  horns  of  the 
altar  had  a  sacredness  above  the  sides ;  the  altar  of  the 
Holy  Place  before  the  veil,  a  sanctity  beyond  that  of 
the  altar  in  the  outer  court ;  while  the  Most  Holy  Place, 
where  stood  the  ark,  and  the  mercy-seat,  was  the  very 
place  of  the  most  immediate  and  visible  manifestation 
of  Jehovah,  who  is  often  described  in  Holy  Scripture, 
with  reference  to  the  ark,  the  mercy-seat,  and  the 
overhanging  cherubim,  as  the  God  who  "  dwelleth 
between  the  cherubim." 

From  this  we  may  easily  understand  the  significance 
of  the  different  prescriptions  as  to  the  blood  in  the  case 
of  different  classes.  A  sin  committed  by  any  private 
individual  or  by  a  ruler,  was  that  of  one  who  had  access 
only  to  the  outer  court,  where  stood  the  altar  of  burnt- 


138  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

offering  ;  for  this  reason,  it  is  there  that  the  blood  must 
be  exhibited,  and  that  on  the  most  sacred  and  con- 
spicuous spot  in  that  court,  the  horns  of  the  altar  where 
God  meets  with  the  people.  But  when  it  was  the 
anointed  priest  that  had  sinned,  the  case  was  different. 
In  that  he  had  a  peculiar  position  of  nearer  access  to 
God  than  others,  as  appointed  of  God  to  minister  before 
Him  in  the  Holy  Place,  his  sin  is  regarded  as  having 
defiled  the  Holy  Place  itself;  and  in  that  Holy  Place 
must  Jehovah  therefore  see  atoning  blood  ere  the 
priest's  position  before  God  can  be  re-established. 

And  the  same  principle  required  that  also  in  the 
Holy  Place  must  the  blood  be  presented  for  the  sin 
of  the  whole  congregation.  For  Israel  in  its  corporate 
unity  was  **  a  kingdom  of  priests,"  a  priestly  nation ; 
and  the  priest  in  the  Holy  Place  represented  the  nation 
in  that  capacity.  Thus  because  of  this  priestly  office 
of  the  nation,  their  collective  sin  was  regarded  as  defil- 
ing the  Holy  Place  in  which,  through  their  representa- 
tives, the  priests,  they  ideally  ministered.  Hence,  as 
the  law  for  the  priests,  so  is  the  law  for  the  nation.  For 
their  corporate  sin  the  blood  must  be  appHed,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  priest  who  representfed  them,  to  the  horns 
of  the  altar  in  the  Holy  Place,  whence  ascended  the 
smoke  of  the  inoense  which  visibly  symbolised  accepted 
priestly  intercession,  and,  more  than  this,  before  the 
veil  itself;  in  other  words,  as  near  to  the  very  mercy- 
seat  itself  as  it  was  permitted  to  the  priest  to  go ;  and 
it  must  be  sprinkled  there,  not  once,  nor  twice,  but 
seven  times,  in  token  of  the  re-establishment,  through 
the  atoning  blood,  of  God's  covenant  of  mercy,  of  which, 
throughout  the  Scripture,  the  number  seven,  the  number 
of  sabbatic  rest  and  covenant  fellowship  with  God,  is 
the  constant  symbol. 


iv.4-v.  13.]     THE  RITUAL   OF  THE  SIN-OFFERING.         139 

And  it  is  not  far  to  seek  for  the  spiritual  thought 
which  underlies  this  part  of  the  ritual.  For  the  tabernacle 
was  represented  as  the  earthly  dwelling-place,  in  a  sense, 
of  God  ;  and  just  as  the  defiling  of  the  house  of  my 
fellow-man  may  be  regarded  as  an  insult  to  him  who 
dwells  in  the  house,  so  the  sin  of  the  priest  and  of  the 
priestly  people  is  regarded  as,  more  than  that  of  those 
outside  of  this  relation,  a  special  affront  to  the  holy 
majesty  of  Jehovah,  criminal  just  in  proportion  as  the 
defilement  approaches  more  nearly  the  innermost  shrine 
of  Jehovah's  manifestation. 

But  though  Israel  is  at  present  suspended  from  its 
priestly  position  and  function  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  the  Apostle  Peter  (i  Peter  ii.  5)  reminds  us  that 
the  body  of  Christian  believers  now  occupies  Israel's 
ancient  place,  being  now  on  earth  the  "royal  priest- 
hood," the  "  holy  nation."  Hence  this  ritual  solemnly 
reminds  us  that  the  sin  of  a  Christian  is  a  far  more 
evil  thing  than  the  sin  of  others ;  it  is  as  the  sin  of 
the  priest,  and  defiles  the  Holy  Place,  even  though 
unwittingly  committed ;  and  thus,  even  more  impera- 
tively than  other  sin,  demands  the  exhibition  of  the 
atoning  blood  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  not  now  in  the 
Holy  Place,  but  more  than  that,  in  the  true  Holiest  of 
all,  where  our  High  Priest  is  now  entered.  And  thus, 
in  every  possible  way,  with  this  elaborate  ceremonial 
of  sprinkling  of  blood  does  the  sin-offering  emphasise 
to  our  own  consciences,  no  less  than  for  ancient  Israel, 
the  solemn  fact  affirmed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
(ix.  22),  "  Without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remis- 
sion of  sin." 

Because  01  this,  we  do  well  to  meditate  much  and 
deeply  on  this  symbolism  of  the  sin-offering,  which, 
more  than  any  other  in  the  law,  has  to  do  with  the 


140  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS, 

propitiation  of  our  Lord  for  sin.  Especially  does  this 
use  of  the  blood,  in  which  the  significance  of  the  sin- 
offering  reached  its  supreme  expression,  claim  our  most 
reverent  attention.  For  the  thought  is  inseparable 
from  the  ritual,  that  the  blood  of  the  slain  victim  must 
be  presented,  not  before  the  priest,  or  before  the  offerer, 
but  before  Jehovah.  Can  any  one  mistake  the  evident 
significance  of  this  ?  Does  it  not  luminously  hold  forth 
the  thought  that  atonement  by  sacrifice  has  to  do,  not 
only  with  man,  but  with  God  ? 

There  is  cause  enough  in  our  day  for  insisting  on 
this.  Many  are  teaching  that  the  need  for  the  shedding 
of  blood  for  the  remission  of  sin,  lies  only  in  the  nature 
of  man  ;  that,  so  far  as  concerns  God,  sin  might  as  well 
have  been  pardoned  without  it ;  that  it  is  only  because 
man  is  so  hard  and  rebellious,  so  stubbornly  distrusts 
the  Divine  love,  that  the  death  of  the  Holy  Victim  of 
Calvary  became  a  necessity.  Nothing  less  than  such 
a  stupendous  exhibition  of  the  love  of  God  could 
suffice  to  disarm  his  enmity  to  God  and  win  him  back 
to  loving  trust.  Hence  the  need  of  the  atonement. 
That  all  this  is  true,  no  one  will  deny  ;  but  it  is  only 
half  the  truth,  and  the  less  momentous  half, — which 
indeed  is  hinted  in  no  offering,  and  in  the  sin-offering 
least  of  all.  Such  a  conception  of  the  matter  as  com- 
pletely fails  to  account  for  this  part  of  the  symbolic 
ritual  of  the  bloody  sacrifices,  as  it  fails  to  agree  with 
other  teachings  of  the  Scriptures.  If  the  only  need 
for  atonement  in  order  to  pardon  is  in  the  nature  of 
the  sinner,  then  why  this  constant  insistence  that  the 
blood  of  the  sacrifice  should  always  be  solemnly  pre- 
sented, not  before  the  sinner,  but  before  Jehovah  ?  We 
see  in  this  fact  most  unmistakably  set  forth,  the  very 
solemn  truth  that  expiation  by  blood  as  a  condition  of 


iv.4-v.i3]     THE  RITUAL   OF  THE  SIN-OFFERING.         141 

forgiveness  of  sin  is  necessary,  not  merely  because  man 
is  what  he  is,  but  most  of  all  because  God  is  what  He 
is.  Let  us  then  not  forget  that  the  presentation  unto 
God  of  an  expiation  for  sin,  accomplished  by  the  death 
of  an  appointed  substitutionary  victim,  was  in  Israel 
made  an  indispensable  condition  of  the  pardon  of  sin. 
Is  this,  as  many  urge,  against  the  love  of  God  ?  By 
no  means !  Least  of  all  will  it  so  appear,  when  we 
remember  who  appointed  the  great  Sacrifice,  and,  above 
all,  who  came  to  fulfil  this  type.  God  does  not  love  us 
because  atonement  has  been  made,  but  atonement  has 
been  made  because  the  Father  loved  us,  and  sent  His 
Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins. 

God  is  none  the  less  just,  that  He  is  love ;  and  none 
the  less  holy,  that  He  is  merciful ;  and  in  His  nature, 
as  the  Most  Just  and  Holy  One,  lies  this  necessity  of 
the  shedding  of  blood  in  order  to  the  forgiveness  of  sin, 
which  is  impressively  symbolised  in  the  unvarying 
ordinance  of  the  Levitical  law,  that  as  a  condition  of 
the  remission  of  sin,  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  must  be 
presented,  not  before  the  sinner,  but  before  Jehovah. 
To  this  generation  of  ours,  with  its  so  exalted  notions 
of  the  greatness  and  dignity  of  man,  and  its  corre- 
spondingly low  conceptions  of  the  ineffable  greatness 
and  majesty  of  the  Most  Holy  God,  this  altar  truth 
may  be  most  distasteful,  so  greatly  does  it  magnify 
the  evil  of  sin ;  but  just  in  that  degree  is  it  necessary 
to  the  humiliation  of  man's  proud  self-complacency, 
that,  whether  pleasing  or  not,  this  truth  be  faithfully 
held  forth. 

Very  instructive  and  helpful  to  our  faith  are  the 
allusions  to  this  sprinkling  of  blood  in  the  New 
Testament.  Thus,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
(xii.  24),  believers  are  reminded   that  they  are  come 


142  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

"  unto  the  blood  of  sprinkling,  that  speaketh  better  than 
that  of  Abel."  The  meaning  is  plain.  For  we  are  told 
(Gen.  iv.  lo),  that  the  blood  of  Abel  cried  out  against 
Cain  from  the  ground ;  and  that  its  cry  for  vengeance 
was  prevaiUng ;  for  God  came  down,  arraigned  the 
murderer,  and  visited  him  with  instant  judgment.  But 
in  these  words  we  are  told  that  the  sprinkled  blood 
of  the  holy  Victim  of  Calvary,  sprinkled  on  the  heavenly 
altar,  also  has  a  voice,  and  a  voice  which  "speaketh 
better  than  that  of  Abel ; "  better,  in  that  it  speaks,  not 
for  vengeance,  but  for  pardoning  mercy ;  better,  in  that 
it  procures  the  remission  even  of  a  penitent  murderer's 
guilt ;  so  that,  "  being  now  justified  through  His  blood  " 
we  may  all  "be  saved  from  wrath  through  Him" 
(Rom.  V.  9).  And,  if  we  are  truly  Christ's,  it  is  our 
blessed  comfort  to  remember  also  that  we  are  said 
(i  Peter  i.  2)  to  have  been  chosen  of  God  unto  the 
sprinkling  of  this  precious  blood  of  Jesus  Christ ;  words 
which  remind  us,  not  only  that  the  blood  of  a  Lamb 
"  without  blemish  and  without  spot "  has  been  pre- 
sented unto  God  for  us,  but  also  that  the  reason  for 
this  distinguishing  mercy  is  found,  not  in  us,  but  in  the 
free  love  of  God,  who  chose  us  in  Christ  Jesus  to  this 
grace. 

And  as  in  the  burnt-offering,  so  in  the  sin-offering, 
the  blood  was  to  be  sprinkled  by  the  priest.  The 
teaching  is  the  same  in  both  cases.  To  present  Christ 
before  God,  laying  the  hand  of  faith  upon  His  head  as 
our  sin-offering,  this  is  all  we  can  do  or  are  required  to 
do.  With  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  we  have  nothing  to 
do.  In  other  words,  the  effective  presentation  of  the 
blood  before  God  is  not  to  be  secured  by  some  act  of 
our  own ;  it  is  not  something  to  be  procured  through 
some  subjective  experience,  other  or  in  addition  to  the 


iv.4-v.  13.]    THE  RITUAL  OF  THE  SIN-OFFERING.         I43 


faith  which  brings  the  Victim.  As  in  the  type,  so  in 
the  Antitype,  the  sprinkHng  of  the  atoning  blood — that 
is,  its  appHcation  God-ward  as  a  propitiation — is  the 
work  of  our  heavenly  Priest.  And  our  part  in  regard 
to  it  is  simply  and  only  this,  that  we  entrust  this  work 
to  Him.  He  will  not  disappoint  us ;  He  is  appointed 
of  God  to  this  end,  and  He  will  see  that  it  is  done. 

In  a  sacrifice  in  which  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
occupies  such  a  central  and  essential  place  in  the 
symbolism,  one  would  anticipate  that  this  ceremony 
would  never  be  dispensed  with.  Very  strange  it  thus 
appears,  at  first  sight,  to  find  that  to  this  law  an  excep- 
tion was  made.  For  it  was  ordained  (ver.  ii)  that  a 
man  so  poor  that  "  his  means  suffice  not "  to  bring  even 
two  doves  or  young  pigeons,  might  bring,  as  a  substitute, 
an  offering  of  fine  flour.  From  this,  some  have  hastened 
to  infer  that  the  shedding  of  the  blood,  and  therewith 
the  idea  of  substituted  life,  w^as  not  essential  to  the 
idea  of  reconciliation  with  God  ;  but  with  little  reason. 
Most  illogical  and  unreasonable  it  is  to  determine  a 
principle,  not  from  the  general  rule,  but  from  an  excep- 
tion ;  especially  when,  as  in  this  case,  for  the  exception 
a  reason  can  be  shown,  which  is  not  inconsistent  with 
the  rule.  For  had  no  such  exceptional  offering  been 
permitted  in  the  case  of  the  extremely  poor  man,  it 
would  have  followed  that  there  would  have  remained 
a  class  of  persons  in  Israel  whom  God  had  excluded 
from  the  provision  of  the  sin-offering,  which  He  had 
made  the  inseparable  condition  of  forgiveness.  But 
two  truths  were  to  be  set  forth  in  the  ritual ;  the  one, 
atonement  by  means  of  a  life  surrendered  in  expia- 
tion of  guilt ;  the  other, — as  in  a  similar  way  in  the 
burnt-offering, — the  sufficiency  of  God's  gracious  pro- 
vision for  even  the  neediest  of  sinners.     Evidently,  here 


144  THE  BOOK   OF  LEVITICUS. 

was  a  case  in  which  something  must  be  sacrificed  in  the 
symbolism.  One  of  these  truths  may  be  perfectly  set 
forth  ;  both  cannot  be,  with  equal  perfectness  ;  a  choice 
must  therefore  be  made,  and  is  made  in  this  exceptional 
regulation,  so  as  to  hold  up  clearly,  even  though  at  the 
expense  of  some  distinctness  in  the  other  thought  of 
expiation,  the  unlimited  sufficiency  of  God's  provision  of 
forgiving  grace. 

And  yet  the  prescriptions  in  this  form  of  the  offering 
were  such  as  to  prevent  any  one  from  confounding  it 
with  the  meal-offering,  which  typified  consecrated  and 
accepted  service.  The  oil  and  the  frankincense  which 
belonged  to  the  latter,  are  to  be  left  out  (ver.  ii); 
incense,  which  typifies  accepted  prayer, — thus  reminding 
us  of  the  unanswered  prayer  of  the  Holy  Victim  when 
He  cried  upon  the  cross,  ^'  My  God  !  My  God  !  why  hast 
Thou  forsaken  Me  ?  "  and  oil,  which  typifies  the  Holy 
Ghost, — reminding  us,  again,  how  from  the  soul  of  the 
Son  of  God  was  mysteriously  withdrawn  in  that  same 
hour  all  the  conscious  presence  and  comfort  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  withdrawment  alone  could  have  wrung  from 
His  Hps  that  unanswered  prayer.  And,  again,  whereas 
the  meal  for  the  meal-offering  had  no  limit  fixed  as  to 
quantity,  in  this  case  the  amount  is  prescribed — *'  the 
tenth  part  of  an  ephah  "  (ver.  1 1 )  ;  an  amount  which, 
from  the  story  of  the  manna,  appears  to  have  repre- 
sented the  sustenance  of  one  full  day.  Thus  it  was 
ordained  that  if,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  this  sin- 
offering  could  not  set  forth  the  sacrifice  of  life  by 
means  of  the  shedding  of  blood,  it  should  at  least  point 
in  the  same  direction,  by  requiring  that,  so  to  speak,  the 
support  of  life  for  one  day  shall  be  given  up,  as  forfeited 
by  sin. 

All  the  other  parts  of  the  ceremonial  are  in  this  ordi* 


iv.4-v.  13]     THE  RITUAL  OF  THE  SIN-OFFERING.         14S 

nance  made  to  take  a  secondary  place,  or  are  omitted  alto- 
gether. Not  all  of  the  offering  is  burnt  upon  the  altar, 
but  only  a  part ;  that  part,  however,  the  fat,  the  choicest ; 
for  the  same  reason  as  in  the  peace-offering.  There  is, 
indeed,  a  peculiar  variation  in  the  case  of  the  offering  of 
the  two  young  pigeons,  in  that,  of  the  one,  the  blood 
only  was  used  in  the  sacrifice,  while  the  other  was 
wholly  burnt  like  a  burnt-offering.  But  for  this  varia- 
tion the  reason  is  evident  enough  in  the  nature  of  the 
victims.  For  in  the  case  of  a  small  creature  like  a 
bird,  the  fat  would  be  so  insignificant  in  quantity,  and  so 
difficult  to  separate  with  thoroughness  from  the  flesh, 
that  the  ordinance  must  needs  be  varied,  and  a  second 
bird  be  taken  for  the  burning,  as  a  substitute  for  the 
separated  fat  of  larger  animals.  The  symbolism  is  not 
essentially  affected  by  the  variation.  What  the  burning 
of  the  fat  means  in  other  offerings,  that  also  means  the 
burning  of  the  second  bird  in  this  case. 

The  Eating  and  the  Burning  of  the  Sin-Offering 
WITHOUT  the  Camp. 

iv.  8-12,  19-21,  26,  31 ;  V.  10,  12. 

"  And  all  the  fat  of  the  bullock  of  the  sin  ofi'ering  he  shall  take  off 
from  it ;  the  fat  that  covereth  the  inwards,  and  all  the  fat  that  is  upon 
the  inwards,  and  the  two  kidneys,  and  the  fat  that  is  upon  them, 
which  is  by  the  loins,  and  the  caul  upon  the  liver,  with  the  kidneys, 
shall  he  take  away,  as  it  is  taken  off  from  the  ox  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace 
offerings  :  and  the  priest  shall  burn  them  upon  the  altar  of  burnt  offer- 
ing. And  the  skin  of  the  bullock,  and  all  its  flesh,  with  its  head,  and 
with  its  legs,  and  its  inwards,  and  its  dung,  even  the  whole  bullock 
shall  he  carry  forth  without  the  camp  unto  a  clean  place,  where  the 
ashes  are  poured  out,  and  burn  it  on  wood  with  fire  :  where  the  ashes 
are  poured  out  shall  it  be  burnt.  .  .  .  And  all  the  fat  thereof  shall  he 
take  off  from  it,  and  bum  it  upon  the  altar.  Thus  shall  he  do  with  the 
bullock ;  as  he  did  with  the  bullock  of  the  sin  offering,  so  shall  he  do 

10 


146  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


with  this :  and  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  them,  and  they 
shall  be  forgiven.  And  he  shall  carry  forth  the  bullock  without  the 
camp,  and  burn  it  as  he  burned  the  first  bullock  :  it  is  the  sin  offering 
for  the  assembly.  .  .  .  And  all  the  fat  thereof  shall  he  burn  upon  the 
altar,  as  the  fat  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings:  and  the  priest  shall 
make  atonement  for  him  as  concerning  his  sin,  and  he  shall  be  for- 
given. .  .  .  And  all  the  fat  thereof  shall  he  take  away,  as  the  fat  is 
taken  away  from  off  the  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings;  and  the  priest 
shall  burn  it  upon  the  altar  for  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord  ;  and  the 
priest  shall  make  atonement  for  him,  and  he  shall  be  forgiven.  .  .  . 
And  he  shall  offer  the  second  for  a  burnt  offering,  according  to  the 
ordinance  :  and  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  him  as  concerning 
his  sin  which  he  hath  sinned,  and  he  shall  be  forgiven.  .  .  .  And  he 
shall  bring  it  to  the  priest,  and  the  priest  shall  take  his  handful  of  it  as 
the  memorial  thereof,  and  burn  it  on  the  altar,  upon  the  offerings  of 
the  Lord  made  by  fire  :  it  is  a  sin  offering. 

In  the  ritual  of  the  sin-offering,  sacrificial  meal,  such 
as  that  of  the  peace-offering,  wherein  the  offerer  and 
his  house,  with  the  priest  and  the  Levite,  partook 
together  of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrificed  victim,  there  was 
none.  The  eating  of  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offerings  by 
the  priests,  prescribed  in  chap.  vi.  26,  had,  primarily,  a 
different  intention  and  meaning.  As  set  forth  elsewhere 
(vii.  35),  it  was  '^  the  anointing  portion  of  Aaron  and  his 
sons  ;"  an  ordinance  expounded  by  the  Apostle  Paul  to 
this  effect,  that  (i  Cor.  ix.  13)  they  which  wait  upon  the 
altar  should  "have  their  portion  with  the  altar."  Yet 
not  of  all  the  sin-offerings  might  the  priest  thus  partake. 
For  when  he  was  himself  the  one  for  whom  the  offer- 
ing was  made,  whether  as  an  individual,  or  as  included 
in  the  congregation,  then  it  is  plain  that  he  for  the 
time  stood  in  the  same  position  before  God  as  the 
private  individual  who  had  sinned.  It  was  a  universal 
principle  of  the  law  that  because  of  the  peculiarly  near 
and  solemn  relation  into  which  the  expiatory  victim  had 
been  brought  to  God,  it  was  "  most  holy,"  and  therefore 
he  for  whose  sin  it  is  offered  could  not  eat  of  its  flesh. 


iv.  4-v.  13.]     THE  RITUAL   OF  THE  SIN-OFFERING.         147 

Hence  the  general  law  is  laid  down  (vi.  30)  :  "  No  sin 
offering,  whereof  any  of  the  blood  is  brought  into  the 
tent  of  meeting  to  make  atonement  in  the  holy  place, 
shall  be  eaten  ;  it  shall  be  burnt  with  fire." 

And  yet,  although,  because  the  priests  could  not  eat 
of  the  flesh,  it  must  be  burnt,  it  could  not  be  burnt 
upon  the  altar ;  not,  as  some  have  fancied,  because  it 
was  regarded  as  unclean,  which  is  directly  contradicted 
by  the  statement  that  it  is  "  most  holy,"  but  because  so 
to  dispose  of  it  would  have  been  to  confound  the  sin- 
offering  with  the  burnt-offering,  which  had,  as  we  have 
seen,  a  specific  symbolic  meaning,  quite  distinct  from 
that  of  the  sin-offering.  It  must  be  so  disposed  of  that 
nothing  shall  divert  the  mind  of  the  worshipper  from 
the  fact  that,  not  sacrifice  as  representing  full  consecra- 
tion, as  in  the  burnt-offering,  but  sacrifice  as  represent- 
ing expiation,  is  set  forth  in  this  offering.  Hence  it 
was  ordained  that  the  flesh  of  these  sin-offerings  for 
the  anointed  priest,  or  for  the  congregation,  which 
included  him,  should  be  "  burnt  on  wood  with  fire 
without  the  camp"  (iv.  11,  12,  21).  And  the  more 
carefully  to  guard  against  the  possibility  of  confounding 
this  burning  of  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offering  with  the 
sacrificial  burning  of  the  victims  on  the  altar,  the 
Hebrew  uses  here  and  in  all  places  where  this  burning 
is  referred  to,  a  verb  wholly  distinct  from  that  which 
is  used  of  the  burnings  on  the  altar,  and  which,  unhke 
that,  is  used  of  any  ordinary  burning  of  anything  for 
any  purpose. 

But  this  burning  of  the  victim  without  the  camp 
was  not  therefore  empty  of  all  typical  significance. 
The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  calls  our 
attention  to  the  fact  that  in  this  part  of  the  appointed 
ritual  there  was  also  that  which  prefigured  Christ  and 


148  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

the  circumstances  of  His  death.  For  we  read  (Heb. 
xiii.  10-12),  after  an  exhortation  to  Christians  to  have 
done  with  the  ritual  observances  of  Judaism  regarding 
meats: — '^We,"  that  is,  we  Christian  believers,  "have 
an  altar/' — the  cross  upon  which  Jesus  suffered, — 
^'whereof  they  have  no  right  to  eat  which  serve  the 
tabernacle ; "  i.e.y  they  who  adhere  to  the  now  effete 
Jewish  tabernacle  service,  the  unbelieving  Israelites, 
derive  no  benefit  from  this  sacrifice  of  ours.  ''  For  the 
bodies  of  those  beasts  whose  blood  is  brought  into  the 
Holy  Place  by  the  high  priest  as  an  offering  for  sin,  are 
burned  without  the  camp;"  the  priesthood  are  debarred 
from  eating  them,  according  to  the  law  we  have  before 
us.  And  then  attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  in  this 
respect  Jesus  fulfilled  this  part  of  the  type  of  the  sin- 
offering,  thus:  '* Wherefore  Jesus  also,  that  He  might 
sanctify  the  people  with  His  own  blood,  suffered  with- 
out the  camp."  That  is,  as  Alford  interprets  (Comm. 
sub.  loc),  in  the  circumstance  that  Jesus  suffered 
without  the  gate,  is  seen  a  visible  adumbration  of  the 
fact  that  He  suffered  outside  the  camp  of  legal  Judaism, 
and  thus,  in  that  He  suffered  for  the  sin  of  the  whole 
congregation  of  Israel,  fulfilled  the  type  of  this  sin- 
offering  in  this  particular.  Thus  a  prophecy  is  dis- 
covered here  which  perhaps  we  had  not  else  discerned, 
concerning  the  manner  of  the  death  of  the  antitypical 
victim.  He  should  suffer  as  a  victim  for  the  sin  of  the 
whole  congregation,  the  priestly  people,  who  should 
for  that  reason  be  debarred,  in  fulfilment  of  the  type, 
from  that  benefit  of  His  death  which  had  else  been  their 
privilege.  And  herein  was  accomplished  to  the  utter- 
most that  surrender  of  His  whole  being  to  God,  in  that, 
in  carrying  out  that  full  consecration,  "  He,  bearing 
His  cross  went  forth,"  not  merely  outside  the  gate  of 


iv.4-v.  13.]     THE  RITUAL  OF  THE  SIN-OFFERING.         149 

Jerusalem, — in  itself  a  trivial  circumstance, — but,  as 
this  fitly  symbolised,  outside  the  congregation  of  Israel, 
to  suffer.  In  other  words.  His  consecration  of  Himself 
to  God  in  self-sacrifice  found  its  supreme  expression  in 
this,  that  He  voluntarily  submitted  to  be  cast  out  from 
Israel,  despised  and  rejected  of  men,  even  of  the  Israel 
of  God. 

And  so  this  burning  of  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offering 
of  the  highest  grade  in  two  places,  the  fat  upon  the 
altar,  in  the  court  of  the  congregation,  and  the  rest  of 
the  victim  outside  the  camp,  set  forth  prophetically  the 
full  self-surrender  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  as  the  sin- 
offering,  in  a  double  aspect :  in  the  former,  emphasising 
simply,  as  in  the  peace-offering.  His  surrender  of  all 
that  was  highest  and  best  in  Him,  as  Son  of  God  and 
Son  of  man,  unto  the  Father  as  a  Sin-offering ;  in  the 
latter,  foreshowing  that  He  should  also,  in  a  special 
manner,  be  a  sacrifice  for  the  sin  of  the  congregation 
of  Israel,  and  that  His  consecration  should  receive  its 
fullest  exhibition  and  most  complete  expression  in  that 
He  should  die  outside  the  camp  of  legal  Judaism,  as  an 
outcast  from  the  congregation  of  Israel. 

Accordingly  we  find  that  this  part  of  the  type  of  the 
sin-offering  was  formally  accomplished  when  the  high 
priest,  upon  Christ's  confession  before  the  Sanhedrim 
of  His  Sonship  to  God,  declared  Him  to  be  guilty  of 
blasphemy ;  an  offence  for  which  it  had  been  ordered 
by  the  Lord  (Lev.  xxiv.  14)  that  the  guilty  person  should 
be  taken  "  without  the  camp  "  to  suffer  for  his  sin. 

In  the  light  of  these  marvellous  correspondences 
between  the  typical  sin-offering  and  the  self-offering  of 
the  Son  of  God,  what  a  profound  meaning  more  and 
more  appears  in  those  words  of  Christ  concerning 
Moses  :  ^*  He  wrote  of  Me." 


ISO  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


The  Sanctity  of  the  Sin-Offering. 

vi,  24-30. 

"  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  Aaron  and 
to  his  sons,  saying,  This  is  the  law  of  the  sin  offering :  in  the  place 
where  the  burnt  offering  is  killed  shall  the  sin  offering  be  killed  before 
the  Lord  :  it  is  most  holy.  The  priest  that  offereth  it  for  sin  shall 
eat  it :  in  a  holy  place  shall  it  be  eaten,  in  the  court  of  the  tent  of 
meeting.  Whatsoever  shall  touch  the  flesh  thereof  shall  be  holy : 
and  when  there  is  sprinkled  of  the  blood  thereof  upon  any  garment, 
thou  shalt  wash  that  whereon  it  was  sprinkled  in  a  holy  place.  But 
the  earthen  vessel  wherein  it  is  sodden  shall  be  broken :  and  if  it  be 
sodden  in  a  brasen  vessel,  it  shall  be  scoured,  and  rinsed  in  water. 
Every  male  among  the  priests  shall  eat  thereof :  it  is  most  holy.  And 
no  sin  offering,  whereof  any  of  the  blood  is  brought  into  the  tent  of 
meeting  to  make  atonement  in  the  holy  place,  shall  be  eaten  :  it  shall 
be  burnt  with  fire." 

In  chap.  vi.  24-30  we  have  a  section  which  is 
supplemental  to  the  law  of  the  sin-offering,  in  which, 
with  some  repetition  of  the  laws  previously  given,  are 
added  certain  special  regulations,  in  fuller  exposition  of 
the  peculiar  sanctity  attaching  to  this  offering.  As  in 
the  case  of  other  offerings  called  "  most  holy,"  it  is 
ordered  that  only  the  males  among  the  priests  shall 
eat  of  it ;  among  whom,  the  officiating  priest  takes  the 
precedence.  Further,  it  is  declared  that  everything  that 
touches  the  offering  shall  be  regarded  as  "holy,"  that 
is,  as  invested  with  the  sanctity  attaching  to  every 
person  or  thing  specially  devoted  to  the  Lord. 

Then  by  way  of  application  of  this  principle  to  two 
of  the  most  common  cases  in  which  it  could  apply,  it 
is  ordered,  first  (ver.  27),  with  regard  to  any  garment 
which  should  be  sprinkled  with  the  blood,  "thou  shalt 
wash  that  whereon  it  was  sprinkled  in  a  holy  place ; " 
that  so  by  no  chance  should  the  least  of  the  blood 
which  had  been  shed  for  the  remission  of  sin,  come  into 


V1.24-30.]     THE  RITUAL   OF  IHE  SIN-OFFERING.  151 


contact  with  anything  unclean  and  unholy.  And  then, 
again,  inasmuch  as  the  flesh  which  should  be  eaten  by 
the  priest  must  needs  be  cooked,  and  the  vessel  used 
by  this  contact  became  holy,  it  is  commanded  (ver.  28) 
that,  if  a  brazen  vessel,  **it  shall  be  scoured"  and 
**  then  rinsed  with  water ; "  that  in  no  case  should 
a  vessel  in  which  might  remain  the  least  of  the  sacri- 
ficial flesh,  be  used  for  any  profane  purpose,  and  so  the 
holy  flesh  be  defiled.  And  because  when  an  (unglazed) 
earthen  vessel  was  used,  even  such  scouring  and  rinsing 
could  not  so  cleanse  it,  but  that  something  of  the  juices 
of  the  holy  flesh  should  be  absorbed  into  its  substance, 
therefore,  in  order  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  its 
e/er  being  used  for  any  common  purpose  it  is  directed 
(ver.  28)  that  it  shall  be  broken.^ 

By  such  regulations  as  these,  it  is  plain  that  even 
ir.  those  days  of  little  light  the  thoughtful  Israelite 
would  be  impressed  with  the  feeling  that  in  the  expia- 
tion of  sin  he  came  into  a  peculiarly  near  and  solemn 
relation  to  the  holiness  of  God,  even  though  he  might 
not  be  able  to  formulate  his  thought  more  exactly.  In 
modern  times,  however,  strange  to  say,  these  very 
regulations  with  regard  to  the  sin-offering,  when  it  has 
been  taken  as  typical  of  Christ,  have  been  used  as  an 
argument  against  the  New  Testament  teaching  as  to 
the  expiatory  nature  of  His  death  as  a  true  satisfaction 

'  A  striking  parallel  to  this  ordinance  is  found  in  a  caste  custom 
in  North  India,  where  the  caste  Hindoo,  as  I  have  often  seen,  if  he 
give  you  a  drink  of  water  in  a  vessel,  will  only  use  an  earthen  vessel, 
which,  immediately  after  you  have  drunk,  he  breaks,  to  preclude  the 
possibility  of  its  accidental  use  thereafter,  by  which  ceremonial  defile- 
ment might  be  contracted.  For  the  Hindoo  does  not  regard  it  as 
possible  so  to  cleanse  a  metallic  vessel  as  to  remove  the  defilement 
thus  caused  ;  and  as  he  could  not  afford  to  throw  it  away,  he  will 
give  one  to  drink  in  the  cheap  earthen  vessel,  or  else  no  drink  at  all. 


152  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

to  the  holy  justice  of  God  for  the  sins  of  men.  For 
it  is  argued,  that  if  Christ  was  really,  in  a  legal  sense, 
regarded  as  a  sinner,  because  standing  in  the  sinner's 
place,  to  receive  in  His  person  the  wrath  of  God  against 
the  sinner's  sin,  it  could  not  have  been  ordered  that 
the  blood  and  the  flesh  of  the  typical  offering  should  be 
thus  regarded  as  of  peculiar  and  pre-eminent  holiness. 
Rather,  we  are  told,  should  we,  for  example,  have  read 
in  the  ritual,  "  No  one,  and,  least  of  all,  the  priests, 
shall  eat  of  it ;  for  it  is  most  unclean."  An  extra- 
ordinary argument  and  conclusion  !  For  surely  it  .s 
an  utter  misapprehension  both  of  the  so-called  "  ortho- 
dox "  view  of  the  atonement,  and  of  the  New  Testament 
teaching  on  the  subject,  to  represent  it  as  involving  tie 
suggestion  that  Christ,  when  for  us  "made  sin,"  and 
suffering  as  our  substitute,  thereby  must  have  been  fDr 
the  time  Himself  unclean.  Surely,  according  to  the  coq- 
stant  use  of  the  word,  in  imputation  of  sin,  of  any  sin, 
to  any  one,  there  is  no  conveyance  of  character ;  it  is 
only  implied  that  such  person  is,  for  whatsoever  reasai, 
justly  or  unjustly,  treated  as  if  he  were  guilty  of  that 
sin  which  is  imputed  to  him.  Imputing  falsehood  to 
a  man  who  is  truth  itself,  does  not  make  him  a  liar, 
though  it  does  involve  treating  him  as  if  he  were.  Just 
so  it  is  in  this  case. 

There  is,  then,  in  these  regulations  which  emphasise 
the  peculiar  holiness  of  the  sin-ofFering,  nothing  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  strictest  juridical  view  of  the 
great  atonement  which  in  type  it  represented.  On 
the  contrary,  one  can  hardly  think  of  anything  which 
should  more  effectively  represent  the  great  truth  of  the 
incomparable  holiness  of  the  victim  of  Calvary,  than 
iust  this  strenuous  insistence  that  the  blood  and  the 
flesh  of  the  typical  victim  should  be  treated  as  of  the 


vi.  24-30.]     THE  RITUAL  OF  THE  SIN-OFFERING.  153 

most  peculiar  sanctity.  If,  when  we  see  the  victim  of 
the  sin-offering  slain  and  its  blood  presented  before  God, 
we  behold  a  vivid  representation  of  Christ,  the  Lamb 
of  God,  ''made  sin  in  our  behalf; "  so  when,  in  these 
regulations,  we  see  how  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  offered 
victim  is  treated  as  of  the  most  pre-eminent  sanctity, 
we  are  as  impressively  reminded  how  it  is  written 
(2  Cor.  V.  21)  that  it  was  "Him  who  knew  no  sin,"  that 
God  "  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf."  Thus  does  the 
type,  in  order  that  nothing  might  be  wanting  in  this  law 
of  the  offering,  insist  in  every  possible  way  on  the  holi- 
ness of  the  great  Victim  who  became  the  Antitype ;  and 
most  of  all  in  the  sin-offering,  because  in  this,  where, 
not  consecration  of  the  person  or  the  works,  or  the 
impartation  and  fellowship  of  the  life  of  Christ,  but 
expiation,  was  the  central  idea  of  the  sacrifice,  there 
was  a  special  need  for  emphasising,  in  an  exceptional 
way,  this  thought ;  that  the  Victim  who  bore  our  sins, 
although  visibly  laden  with  the  curse  of  God,  was  none 
the  less  all  the  time  Himself  ''  most  holy ; "  so  that  in 
that  unfathomable  mystery  of  Calvary,  never  was  He 
more  truly  and  really  the  well-beloved  Son  of  the  Father 
than  when  He  cried  out  in  the  extremity  of  His  anguish 
as  "made  sin  for  us,"  '' My  God,  My  God,  why  hast 
Thou  forsaken  Me  ?  " 

How  wonderfully  adapted  in  all  its  details  was  this 
law  of  the  sin-offering,  not  only  for  the  education  of 
Israel,  but,  if  we  will  meditate  upon  these  things,  also 
for  our  own  !  How  the  truths  which  underlie  this  law 
should  humble  us,  even  in  proportion  as  they  exalt  to 
the  uttermost  the  ineffable  majesty  of  the  holiness  of 
God  !  And,  if  we  will  but  yield  to  their  teachings, 
how  mightily  should  they  constrain  us,  in  grateful 
recognition   of  the   love   of  the   Holy   One  who  was 


154  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

"  made  sin  in  our  behalf/'  and  of  the  love  of  the 
Father  who  sent  Him  for  this  end,  to  accept  Him  as 
our  Sin-ofFering,  set  forth  in  the  consummation  of  the 
ages,  ''  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself."  No 
more  are  offered  the  sin-offerings  of  the  law  of  Moses  : — 

"  But  Christ,  the  heavenly  Lamb, 
Takes  all  our  sins  away  ; 
A  sacrifice  of  nobler  name, 
And  richer  blood,  than  they." 

If,  then,  the  law  of  the  Levitical  sin-offering  abides 
in  force  no  longer,  this  is  not  because  God  has  changed, 
or  because  the  truths  which  it  set  forth  concerning 
sin,  and  expiation,  and  pardon,  are  obsolete,  but  only 
because  the  great  Sin-offering  which  the  ancient  sacri- 
fice typified,  has  now  appeared.  God  hath  ^^  taken  away 
the  first,  that  He  may  establish  the  second "  (Heb.  x. 
9).  We  have  thus  to  do  with  the  same  God  as  the 
Israelite.  Now,  as  then.  He  takes  account  of  all  our 
sins,  even  of  sins  committed  "  unwittingly ; "  He  reckons 
guilt  with  the  same  absolute  impartiality  and  justice  as 
then ;  He  pardons  sin,  as  then,  only  when  the  sinner 
who  seeks  pardon,  presents  a  sin-offering.  But  He  has 
now  Himself  provided  the  Lamb  for  this  offering,  and 
now  in  infinite  love  invites  us  all,  without  distinction, 
with  whatsoever  sins  we  may  be  burdened,  to  make 
free  use  of  the  all-sufficient  and  most  efficient  blood  of 
His  well-beloved  Son.  Shall  we  risk  neglecting  this 
Divine  provision,  and  undertake  to  deal  with  God  by- 
and-bye,  in  the  great  day  of  judgment,  on  our  own 
merits,  without  a  sacrifice  for  sin  ?  God  forbid  !  Rather 
let  us  go  on  to  say  in  the  words  of  that  old  hymn  : — 

"  My  faith  would  lay  her  hand 
On  that  dear  Head  of  Thine, 
While  like  a  penitent  I  stand, 
And  there  confess  my  sin." 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

THE    GUILT-OFFERING. 
Lev.  v.  14  ;  vi.  7  ;  vii.  1-7. 

AS  in  the  English  version,  so  also  in  the  Hebrew, 
the  special  class  of  sins  for  which  the  guilt-offer- 
ing ^  is  prescribed,  is  denoted  by  a  distinct  and 
specific  word.  That  word,  like  the  English  '*  trespass/' 
its  equivalent,  always  has  reference  to  an  invasion  of 
the  rights  of  others,  especially  in  respect  of  property  or 
service.  It  is  used,  for  instance,  of  the  sin  of  Achan 
(Josh.  vii.  i),  who  had  appropriated  spoil  from  Jericho, 
which  God  had  commanded  to  be  set  apart  for  Himself. 
Thus,  also,  the  neglect  of  God's  service,  and  especially 
the  worship  of  idols,  is  often  described  by  this  same 
word,  as  in  2  Chron.  xxviii.  22,  xxix.  6,  and  many 
other  places.  The  reason  is  evident ;  for  idolatry  in- 
volved a  withholding  from  God  of  those  tithes  and 
other  offerings  which  He  claimed  from  Israel,  and  thus 
became,  as  it  were,  an  invasion  of  the  Divine  rights  of 


*  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  Revisers  had  not  allowed  in  this 
case  the  rendering  "  trespass-offering  "  to  stand,  as  in  the  Authorised 
Version.  For,  unlike  the  more  generic  term  "  guilt,"  our  word 
"  trespass "  very  precisely  indicates  the  class  of  offences  for  which 
this  particular  offering  was  ordained.  It  is  indeed  true  that  the 
Hebrew  word  so  rendered  is  quite  distinct  from  that  rendered  "  tres- 
pass ; "  yet,  in  this  instance,  by  the  attempt  to  represent  this  fact  in 
English,  more  has  been  lost  than  gained. 


156  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

property.  The  same  word  is  even  applied  to  the  sin  of 
adultery  (Numb.  v.  12,  27),  apparently  from  the  same 
point  of  view,  inasmuch  as  the  woman  is  regarded  as 
belonging  to  her  husband,  who  has  therefore  in  her 
certain  sacred  rights,  of  which  adultery  is  an  invasion. 
Thus,  while  every  '*  trespass  "  is  a  sin,  yet  every  sin  is 
not  a  '*  trespass."  There  are,  evidently,  many  sins  of 
which  this  is  not  a  characteristic  feature.  But  the  sins 
for  which  the  guilt-offering  is  prescribed  are  in  every 
case  sins  which  mayf  at  least,  be  specially  regarded  under 
this  particular  point  of  view,  to  wit,  as  trespasses  on 
the  rights  of  God  or  man  in  respect  of  ownership ;  and 
this  gives  us  the  fundamental  thought  which  distin- 
guishes the  guilt-offering  from  all  others,  namely,  that 
for  any  invasion  of  the  rights  of  another  in  regard  to 
property,  not  only  must  expiation  be  made,  in  that  it 
is  a  sin,  but  also  satisfaction,  and,  so  far  as  possible, 
plenary  reparation  of  the  wrong,  in  that  the  sin  is  also 
trespass. 

From  this  it  is  evident  that,  as  contrasted  with  the 
burnt-offering,  which  pre-eminently  symbolised  full  con- 
secration of  the  person,  and  the  peace-offering,  which 
symbolised  fellowship  with  God,  as  based  upon  recon- 
ciliation by  sacrifice,  the  guilt-offering  takes  its  place, 
in  a  general  sense,  with  the  sin-offering,  as,  like  that, 
specially  designed  to  effect  the  reinstatement  of  an 
offender  in  covenant  relation  with  God.  Thus,  like  the 
latter,  and  unlike  the  former  offerings,  it  was  only  pre- 
scribed with  reference  to  specific  instances  of  failure 
to  fulfil  some  particular  obligation  toward  God  or  man. 
So  also,  as  the  express  condition  of  an  acceptable 
offering,  the  formal  confession  of  such  sin  was  par- 
ticularly enjoined.  And,  finally,  unlike  the  burnt- 
offering,  which  was  wholly  consumed  upon  the  altar, 


V.  i4-vi.7.]  THE  GUILT-OFFERING.  157 

or  the  peace-offering,  of  the  flesh  of  which,  with  certain 
reservations,  the  worshipper  himself  partook,  in  the 
case  of  the  guilt-offering,  as  in  the  sin-offering,  the  fat 
parts  only  were  burnt  on  the  altar,  and  the  remainder 
of  the  victim  fell  to  the  priests,  to  be  eaten  by  them 
alone  in  a  holy  place,  as  a  thing  "most  holy."  The 
law  is  given  in  the  following  words  (vii.  3-7) :  "  He 
shall  offer  of  it  all  the  fat  thereof;  the  fat  tail,  and  the 
fat  that  covereth  the  inwards,  and  the  two  kidneys,  and 
the  fat  that  is  on  them,  which  is  by  the  loins,  and  the 
caul  upon  the  liver,  with  the  kidneys,  shall  he  take 
away:  and  the  priest  shall  burn  them  upon  the  altar 
for  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  :  it  is  a 
guilt  offering.  Every  male  among  the  priests  shall  eat 
thereof :  it  shall  be  eaten  in  a  holy  place :  it  is  most 
holy.  As  is  the  sin  offering,  so  is  the  guilt  offering  : 
there  is  one  law  for  them  :  the  priest  that  maketh 
atonement  therewith,  he  shall  have  it." 

But  while,  in  a  general  way,  the  guilt-offering  was 
evidently  intended,  like  the  sin-offering,  to  signify  the 
removal  of  sin  from  the  conscience  through  sacrifice,  and 
thus  may  be  regarded  as  a  variety  of  the  sin-offering, 
yet  the  ritual  presents  some  striking  variations  from 
that  of  the  latter.  These  are  all  explicable  from  this 
consideration,  that  whereas  the  sin-offering  represented 
the  idea  of  atonement  by  sacrifice,  regarded  as  an 
expiation  of  guilt,  the  guilt-offering  represented  atone- 
ment under  the  aspect  of  a  satisfaction  and  reparation 
for  the  wrong  committed.  Hence,  because  the  idea  of 
expiation  here  fell  somewhat  into  the  background,  in 
order  to  give  the  greater  prominence  to  that  of  repara- 
tion and  satisfaction,  the  application  of  the  blood  is 
only  made,  as  in  the  burnt-offering  and  the  peace- 
offering,  by  sprinkling  "  on  the  altar  (of  burnt-offering) 


IS8  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS, 


round  about"  (vii.  i).  Hence,  again,  we  find  that  the 
guilt-offering  always  had  reference  to  the  sin  of  the 
individual,  and  never  to  the  congregation ;  because  it 
was  scarcely  possible  that  every  individual  in  the 
whole  congregation  should  be  guilty  in  such  instances 
as  those  for  which  the  guilt-offering  is  prescribed. 

Again,  we  have  another  contrast  in  the  restriction 
imposed  upon  the  choice  of  the  victim  for  the  sacrifice. 
In  the  sin-offering,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  ordained  that 
the  offering  should  be  varied  according  to  the  theocratic 
rank  of  the  offender,  to  emphasise  thereby  to  the 
conscience  gradations  of  guilt,  as  thus  determined ; 
also,  it  was  permitted  that  the  offering  might  be  varied 
in  value  according  to  the  ability  of  the  offerer,  in  order 
that  it  might  thus  be  signified  in  symbol  that  it  was 
the  gracious  will  of  God  that  nothing  in  the  personal 
condition  of  the  sinner  should  exclude  any  one  from 
the  merciful  provision  of  the  expiatory  sacrifice.  But 
it  was  no  less  important  that  another  aspect  of  the 
matter  should  be  held  forth,  namely,  that  God  is  no 
respecter  of  persons  ;  and  that,  whatever  be  the  con- 
dition of  the  offender,  the  obligation  to  plenary  satis- 
faction and  reparation  tor  trespass  committed,  cannot 
be  modified  in  any  way  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
offender.  The  man  who,  for  example,  has  defrauded 
his  neighbour,  whether  of  a  small  sum  or  of  a  large 
estate,  abides  his  debtor  before  God,  under  all  con- 
ceivable conditions,  until  restitution  is  made.  The 
obligation  of  full  payment  rests  upon  every  debtor,  be 
he  poor  or  rich,  until  the  last  farthing  is  discharged. 
Hence,  the  sacrificial  victim  of  the  guilt-offering  is  the 
same,  whether  for  the  poor  man  or  the  rich  man,  ''a 
ram  of  the  flock." 

It  was  "  a  ram  of  the  flock,"  because,  as  contrasted 


V.  i4-vi.  7.]  THE   GUILT-OFFERING.  159 


with  the  ewe  or  the  lamb,  or  the  dove  and  the  pigeon, 
it  was  a  valuable  offering.  And  yet  it  is  not  a  bullock, 
the  most  valuable  offering  known  to  the  law,  because 
that  might  be  hopelessly  out  of  the  reach  of  many  a 
poor  man.  The  idea  of  value  must  be  represented,  and 
yet  not  so  represented  as  to  exclude  a  large  part  of  the 
people  from  the  provisions  of  the  guilt-offering.  The 
ram  must  be  '^without  blemish,"  that  naught  may 
detract  from  its  value,  as  a  symbol  of  full  satisfaction 
for  the  wrong  done. 

But  most  distinctive  of  all  the  requisitions  touching 
the  victim  is  this,  that,  unlike  all  other  victims  for 
other  offerings,  the  ram  of  the  guilt-offering  must  in 
each  case  be  definitely  appraised  by  the  priest.  The 
phrase  is  (v.  15),  that  it  must  be  ''according  to  thy 
estimation  in  silver  by  shekels,  after  the  shekel  of  the 
sanctuary."  This  expression  evidently  requires,  first, 
that  the  offerer's  own  estimate  of  the  value  of  the 
victim  shall  not  be  taken,  but  that  of  the  priest,  as 
representing  God  in  this  transaction  ;  and,  secondly, 
that  its  value  shall  in  no  case  fall  below  a  certain 
standard ;  for  the  plural  expression,  "  by  shekels," 
implies  that  the  value  of  the  ram  shall  not  be  less  than 
two  shekels.  And  the  shekel  must  be  of  full  weight ; 
the  standard  of  valuation  must  be  God's,  and  not  man's, 
"  the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary." 

Still  more  to  emphasise  the  distinctive  thought  of 
this  sacrifice,  that  full  satisfaction  and  reparation  for 
all  offences  is  with  God  the  universal  and  unalterable 
condition  of  forgiveness,  it  was  further  ordered  that  in 
all  cases  where  the  trespass  was  of  such  a  character  as 
made  this  possible,  that  which  had  been  unjustly  taken 
or  kept  back,  whether  from  God  or  man,  should  be 
restored  "  in  full ; "  and  not  only  this,  but  inasmuch  as 


i6o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

by  this  misappropriation  of  what  was  not  his  own,  the 
offender  had  for  the  time  deprived  another  of  the  use 
and  enjoyment  of  that  which  belonged  to  him,  he  must 
add  to  that  of  which  he  had  defrauded  him  *^  the  fifth 
part  more,"  a  double  tithe.  Thus  the  guilty  person  was 
not  allowed  to  have  gained  even  any  temporary  advan- 
tage from  the  use  for  a  while  of  that  which  he  now 
restored ;  for  "  the  fifth  part  more  "  would  presumably 
quite  overbalance  all  conceivable  advantage  or  enjoy- 
ment which  he  might  have  had  from  his  fraud.  How 
admirable  in  all  this  the  exact  justice  of  God  !  How 
perfectly  adapted  was  the  guilt-offering,  in  all  these 
particulars,  to  educate  the  conscience,  and  to  preclude 
any  possible  wrong  inferences  from  the  allowance  which 
was  made,  for  other  reasons,  for  the  poor  man,  in  the 
expiatory  offerings  for  sin  ! 

The  arrangement  of  the  law  of  the  guilt-ofiering  is 
very  simple.  It  is  divided  into  two  sections,  the  first 
of  which  (v.  14-19)  deals  with  cases  of  trespass  "in 
the  holy  things  of  the  Lord,"  things  which,  by  the 
law  or  by  an  act  of  consecration,  were  regarded  as 
belonging  in  a  special  sense  to  Jehovah  ;  the  second 
section,  on  the  other  hand  (vi.  1-7),  deals  with  cases 
of  trespass  on  the  property  rights  of  man. 

The  first  of  these,  again,  consists  of  two  parts. 
Verses  14-16  give  the  law  of  the  guilt-offering  as 
applied  to  cases  in  which  a  man,  through  inadvertence 
or  unwittingly,  trespasses  in  the  holy  things  of  the  Lord, 
but  in  such  manner  that  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
trespass  can  afterward  be  definitely  known  and  valued ; 
verses  17-19  deal  with  cases  where  there  has  been 
trespass  such  as  to  burden  the  conscience,  and  yet 
such  as,  for  whatsoever  reason,  cannot  be  precisely 
measured. 


V.  i4-vi.7.]  THE  GUILT-OFFERING.  i6i 

By  "  the  holy  things  of  the  Lord  "  are  intended  such 
things  as,  either  by  universal  ordinance  or  by  voluntary 
consecration,  were  regarded  as  belonging  to  Jehovah, 
and  in  a  special  sense  His  property.  Thus,  under  this 
head  would  come  the  case  of  the  man  who,  for  instance, 
should  unwittingly  eat  the  flesh  of  the  firstling  of  his 
cattle,  or  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offering,  or  the  shew- 
bread ;  or  should  use  his  tithe,  or  any  part  of  it,  for 
himself.  Even  though  he  did  this  unwittingly,  yet  it 
none  the  less  disturbed  the  man's  relation  to  God ;  and 
therefore,  when  known,  in  order  to  his  reinstatement 
in  fellowship  with  God,  it  was  necessary  that  he  should 
make  full  restitution  with  a  fifth  part  added,  and, 
besides  this,  sacrifice  a  ram,  duly  appraised,  as  a  guilt- 
offering.  In  that  the  sacrifice  was  prescribed  over  and 
above  the  restitution,  the  worshipper  was  reminded 
that,  in  view  of  the  infinite  majesty  and  holiness  of 
God,  it  lies  not  in  the  power  of  any  creature  to  nullify 
the  wrong  God-ward,  even  by  fullest  restitution.  For 
trespass  is  not  only  trespass,  but  is  also  sin ;  an  offence 
not  only  against  the  rights  of  Jehovah  as  Owner,  but 
also  an  affront  to  Him  as  Supreme  King  and  Lawgiver. 

And  yet,  because  the  worshipper  must  not  be  allowed 
to  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  sin  is  of  the  nature  of  a 
debt,  a  victim  was  ordered  which  should  especially  bring 
to  mind  this  aspect  of  the  matter.  For  not  only  among 
the  Hebrews,  but  among  the  Arabs,  the  Romans  and 
other  ancient  peoples,  sheep,  and  especially  rams,  were 
very  commonly  used  as  a  medium  of  payment  in  case 
of  debt,  and  especially  in  paying  tribute. 

Thus  we  read  (2  Kings  iii.  4),  that  Mesha,  king  of 
Moab,  rendered  unto  the  king  of  Israel  "an  hundred 
thousand  lambs,  and  an  hundred  thousand  rams,  with 
the  wool,"  in  payment  of  tribute ;  and,  at  a  later  day, 

n 


i62  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS 


Isaiah  (xvi.  i,  R.V.)  delivers  to  Moab  the  mandate  of 
Jehovah :  '^  Send  ye  the  lambs  for  the  ruler  of  the  land 
.  .  .  unto  the  mount  of  the  daughter  of  Zion." 

And  so  the  ram  having  been  brought  and  presented 
by  the  guilty  person,  with  confession  of  his  fault,  it  was 
slain  by  the  priest,  like  the  sin-offering.  The  blood, 
however,  was  not  applied  to  the  horns  of  the  altar  of 
burnt-offering,  still  less  brought  into  the  Holy  Place,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  sin-offering ;  but  (vii.  2)  was  to  be 
sprinkled  "  upon  the  altar  round  about,"  as  in  the  burnt- 
offering.  The  reason  of  this  difference  in  the  application 
of  the  blood,  as  above  remarked,  lies  in  this,  that,  as  in 
the  burnt-offering,  the  idea  of  sacrifice  as  symbolising 
expiation  takes  a  place  secondary  and  subordinate  to 
another  thought;  in  this  case,  the  conception  of  sacrifice 
as  representing  satisfaction  for  trespass. 

The  next  section  (vv.  17-19)  does  not  expressly 
mention  sins  of  trespass ;  for  which  reason  some  have 
thought  that  it  was  essentially  a  repetition  of  the  law 
of  the  sin-offering.  But  that  it  is  not  to  be  so  regarded 
is  plain  from  the  fact  that  the  victim  is  still  the  same  as 
for  the  guilt-offering,  and  from  the  explicit  statement 
(ver.  19)  that  this  "is  a  guilt-offering."  The  inference 
is  natural  that  the  prescription  still  has  reference  to 
"trespass  in  the  holy  things  of  the  Lord";  and  the 
class  of  cases  intended  is  probably  indicated  by  the 
phrase,  "though  he  knew  it  not."  In  the  former 
section,  the  law  provided  for  cases  in  which  though  the 
trespass  had  been  done  unwittingly,  yet  the  offender 
afterward  came  to  know  of  the  trespass  in  its  precise 
extent,  so  as  to  give  an  exact  basis  for  the  restitution 
ordered  in  such  cases.  But  it  is  quite  supposable  that 
there  might  be  cases  in  which,  although  the  offender 
was  aware  that    there  had   been  a  probable  trespass, 


V.  i4-vi.7.]  THE  GUILT-OFFERING.  163 

such  as  to  burden  his  conscience,  he  yet  knew  not  just 
how  much  it  was.  The  ordinance  is  only  in  so  far 
modified  as  such  a  case  would  make  necessary  ;  where 
there  was  no  exact  knowledge  of  the  amount  of  trespass, 
obviously  there  the  law  of  restitution  with  the  added 
fifth  could  not  be  applied.  Yet,  none  the  less,  the  man 
is  guilty ;  he  **  bears  his  iniquity,"  that  is,  he  is  liable 
to  the  penalty  of  his  fault ;  and  in  order  to  the  re-esta- 
blishment of  his  covenant  relation  with  God,  the  ram 
must  be  offered  as  a  guilt-offering. 

It  is  suggestive  to  observe  the  emphasis  which  is  laid 
upon  the  necessity  of  the  guilt-offering,  even  in  such 
cases.  Three  times,  reference  is  explicitly  made  to  this 
fact  of  ignorance,  as  not  affecting  the  requirement  of  the 
guilt-offering:  (ver.  17)  ''Though  he  knew  it  not,  yet 
is  he  guilty,  and  shall  bear  his  iniquity ; "  and  again 
(ver.  18),  with  special  explicitness,  ''The  priest  shall 
make  atonement  for  him  concerning  the  thing  wherein 
he  erred  unwittingly  and  knew  it  not;"  and  yet 
again  (ver.  19),  "It  is  a  guilt  offering:  he  is  certainly 
guilty  before  the  Lord."  The  repetition  is  an  urgent 
reminder  that  in  this  case,  as  in  all  others,  we  are  never 
to  forget  that  however  our  ignorance  of  a  trespass  at 
the  time,  or  even  lack  of  definite  knowledge  regarding 
its  nature  and  extent,  may  affect  the  degree  of  our  guilt, 
it  cannot  affect  the  fact  of  our  guilt,  and  the  consequent 
necessity  for  satisfaction  in  order  to  acceptance  with 
God. 

The  second  section  of  the  law  of  the  guilt-offering 
(vi.  1-7)  deals  with  trespasses  against  man,  as  also, 
like  trespasses  against  Jehovah,  requiring,  in  order  to 
forgiveness  from  God,  full  restitution  with  the  added 
fifth,  and  the  offering  of  the  ram  as  a  guilt-offering. 


1 64  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

Five  cases  are   named   (vv.  2,  3),  no  doubt  as  being 
common,  typical  examples  of  sins  of  this  character. 

The  first  case  is  trespass  upon  a  neighbour's  rights 
in  ^'  a  matter  of  deposit ; "  where  a  man  has  entrusted 
something  to  another  to  keep,  and  he  has  either  sold  it 
or  unlawfully  used  it  as  if  it  were  his  own.  The  second 
case  takes  in  all  fraud  in  a  ''  bargain/'  as  when,  for 
example,  a  man  sells  goods,  or  a  piece  of  land,  repre- 
senting them  to  be  better  than  they  really  are,  or 
asking  a  price  larger  than  he  knows  an  article  to  be 
really  worth.  The  third  instance  is  called  "  robbery  ; " 
by  which  we  are  to  understand  any  act  or  process, 
even  though  it  should  be  under  colour  of  legal  forms, 
by  means  of  which  a  man  may  manage  unjustly  to  get 
possession  of  the  property  of  his  neighbour,  without 
giving  him  due  equivalent  therefor.  The  fourth  instance 
is  called  "  oppression  "  of  his  neighbour.  The  English 
word  contains  the  same  image  as  the  Hebrew  word, 
which  is  used,  for  instance,  of  the  unnecessary  reten- 
tion of  the  wages  of  the  employe  by  the  employer 
(xix.  13);  it  may  be  applied  to  all  cases  in  which  a  man 
takes  advantage  of  another's  circumstances  to  extort 
from  him  any  thing  or  any  service  to  which  he  has  no 
right,  or  to  force  upon  him  something  which  it  is  to 
the  poor  man's  disadvantage  to  take.  The  last  example 
of  offences  to  which  the  law  of  the  guilt-offering  applied, 
is  the  case  in  which  a  man  finds  something  and  then 
denies  it  to  the  rightful  owner.  The  reference  to  false 
swearing  which  follows,  as  appears  from  ver.  5,  refers  not 
merely  to  lying  and  perjury  concerning  this  last-named 
case,  but  equally  to  all  cases  in  which  a  man  may  lie 
or  swear  falsely  to  the  pecuniary  damage  of  his  neigh- 
hour.  It  is  mentioned  not  merely  as  aggravating  such 
sin,  but  because  in  swearing  touching  any  matter,  a  man 


V.  i4-vi.7.]  THE   GUILT-OFFERING.  165 

appeals  to  God  as  witness  to  the  truth  of  his  words ;  so 
that  by  swearing  in  these  cases  he  represents  God  as 
a  party  to  his  falsehood  and  injustice. 

In  all  these  cases,  the  prescription  is  the  same  as  in 
analogous  offences  in  the  holy  things  of  Jehovah.  First 
of  all,  the  guilty  man  must  confess  the  wrong  which  he 
has  done  (Numb.  v.  7),  then  restitution  must  be  made  of 
all  of  which  he  has  defrauded  his  neighbour,  together 
with  one-fifth  additional.  But  while  this  may  set  him 
right  with  man,  it  has  not  yet  set  him  right  with  God. 
He  must  bring  his  guilt-offering  unto  Jehovah  (vv. 
^}  7)  t  '*  ^  r^"^  without  blemish  out  of  the  flock,  accord- 
ing to  the  priest's  estimation,  for  a  guilt  offering,  unto 
the  priest :  and  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for 
him  before  the  Lord,  and  he  shall  be  forgiven  ;  con- 
cerning whatsoever  he  doeth  so  as  to  be  guilty  thereby." 

And  this  completes  the  law  of  the  guilt-offering.  It 
was  thus  prescribed  for  sins  which  involve  a  defrauding 
or  injuring  of  another  in  respect  to  material  things, 
whether  God  or  man,  whether  knowingly  or  unwittingly. 
The  law  was  one  and  unalterable  for  all ;  the  condition 
of  pardon  was  plenary  restitution  for  the  wrong  done,  and 
the  offering  of  a  costly  sacrifice,  appraised  as  such  by 
the  priest,  the  earthly  representative  of  God,  in  the 
shekel  of  the  sanctuary,  "  a  ram  without  blemish  out 
of  the  flock." 

There  are  lessons  from  this  ordinance,  so  plain  that, 
even  in  the  dim  light  of  those  ancient  days,  the  Israelite 
might  discern  and  understand  them.  And  they  are 
lessons  which,  because  man  and  his  ways  are  the  same 
as  then,  and  God  the  same  as  then,  are  no  less  pertinent 
to  all  of  us  to-day. 

Thus  we  are  taught  by  this  law  that  God  claims  from 
man,  and  especially  from  His  own  people,  certain  rights 


i66  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

of  property,  of  which  He  will  not  allow  Himself  to  be 
defrauded,  even  through  man's  forgetfulness  or  inad- 
vertence. In  a  later  day  Israel  was  sternly  reminded 
of  this  in  the  burning  words  of  Jehovah  by  the  prophet 
Malachi  (iii.  8,  9)  :  "  Will  a  man  rob  God  ?  yet  ye 
rob  me.  But  ye  say,  Wherein  have  we  robbed  thee  ? 
In  tithes  and  offerings.  Ye  are  cursed  with  the  curse ; 
for  ye  rob  me,  even  this  whole  nation."  Nor  has  God 
relaxed  His  claim  in  the  present  dispensation.  For  the 
Apostle  Paul  charges  the  Corinthian  Christians  (2  Cor. 
viii.  7),  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  with  regard  to  their 
gifts,  that  as  they  abounded  in  other  graces,  so  they 
should  ^'  abound  in  this  grace  also."  And  this  is  the 
first  lesson  brought  before  us  in  the  law  of  the  guilt- 
offering.  God  claims  His  tithe,  His  first-fruit,  and  the 
fulfilment  of  all  vows.  It  was  a  lesson  for  that  time  ; 
it  is  no  less  a  lesson  for  our  time. 

And  the  guilt-offering  further  reminds  us  that  as 
God  has  rights,  so  man  also  has  rights,  and  that 
Jehovah,  as  the  King  and  Judge  of  men,  will  exact  the 
satisfaction  of  those  rights,  and  will  pass  over  no  injury 
done  by  man  to  his  neighbour  in  material  things,  nor 
forgive  it  unto  any  man,  except  upon  condition  of  the 
most  ample  material  restitution  to  the  injured  party. 

Then,  yet  again,  if  the  sin-offering  called  especially 
for  faith  in  an  expiatory  sacrifice  as  the  condition  of 
the  Divine  forgiveness,  the  guilt-offering  as  specifically 
called  also  for  repentance,  as  a  condition  of  pardon, 
no  less  essential.  Its  unambiguous  message  to  every 
Israelite  was  the  same  as  that  of  John  the  Baptist  at 
a  later  day  (Matt.  iii.  8,  9) :  *^  Bring  forth  fruit  worthy 
of  repentance  :  and  think  not  to  say  within  yourselves, 
We  have  Abraham  to  our  father." 

The  reminder  is  as  much  needed  now  as  in  the  days 


V.  14-19]  THE  GUILT-OFFERING.  167 

of  Moses.  How  specific  and  practical  the  selection  of 
the  particular  instances  mentioned  as  cases  for  the 
application  of  the  inexorable  law  of  the  guilt-offering ! 
Let  us  note  them  again,  for  they  are  not  cases  peculiar 
to  Israel  or  to  the  fifteenth  century  before  Christ.  "  If 
any  one  .  .  .  deal  falsely  with  his  neighbour  in  a 
matter  of  deposit ; "  as,  e.g.^  in  the  case  of  moneys 
entrusted  to  a  bank  or  railway  company,  or  other 
corporation ;  for  there  is  no  hint  that  the  law  did  not 
apply  except  to  individuals,  or  that  a  man  might  be 
released  from  these  stringent  obligations  of  righteousness 
whenever  in  some  such  evil  business  he  was  associ- 
ated with  others;  the  guilt-offering  must  be  forthcoming, 
with  the  amplest  restitution,  or  there  is  no  pardon.  Then 
false  dealing  in  a  ''  bargain "  is  named,  as  involving 
the  same  requirement ;  as  when  a  man  prides  himself 
on  driving  "  a  good  bargain,"  by  getting  something 
unfairly  tor  less  than  its  value,  taking  advantage  of 
his  neighbour's  straits ;  or  by  selling  something  for 
more  than  its  value,  taking  advantage  of  his  neighbour's 
ignorance,  or  his  necessity.  Then  is  mentioned  '^  rob- 
bery ; "  by  which  word  is  covered  not  merely  that 
which  goes  by  the  name  in  polite  circles,  but  all  cases 
in  which  a  man  takes  advantage  of  his  neighbour's 
distress  or  helplessness,  perhaps  by  means  of  some 
technicality  of  law,  to  ^^ strip"  him,  as  the  Hebrew 
word  is,  of  his  property  of  any  kind.  And  next  is 
specified  the  man  who  may  ''have  oppressed  his 
neighbour,"  especially  a  man  or  woman  who  serves 
him,  as  the  usage  of  the  word  suggests ;  grinding  thus 
the  face  of  the  poor;  paying,  for  instance,  less  for 
labour  than  the  law  of  righteousness  and  love  demands, 
because  the  poor  man  must  have  work  or  starve  with 
his  house.     What   sweeping   specifications !     And   all 


1 68  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


such,  in  all  lands  and  all  ages,  are  solemnly  reminded 
in  the  law  of  the  guilt-offering  that  in  these  their  sharp 
practices  they  have  to  reckon  not  with  man  merely, 
but  with  God ;  and  that  it  is  utterly  vain  for  a  man 
to  hope  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin  from  God,  offering 
or  no  offering,  so  long  as  he  has  in  his  pocket  his 
neighbour's  money.  For  all  such,  full  restoration  with 
the  added  fifth,  according  to  the  law  of  the  theocratic 
kingdom,  was  the  unalterable  condition  of  the  Divine 
forgiveness ;  and  we  shall  find  that  this  law  of  the 
theocratic  kingdom  will  also  be  the  law  applied  in  the 
adjudications  of  the  great  white  throne. 

Furthermore,  in  that  it  was  particularly  enjoined  that 
in  the  estimation  of  the  value  of  the  guilt-offering,  not 
the  shekel  of  the  people,  often  of  hght  weight,  but  the 
full  weight  ''shekel  of  the  sanctuary"  was  to  be  held 
the  invariable  standard;  we,  who  are  so  apt  to  ease 
things  to  our  consciences  by  applying  to  our  conduct 
the  principles  of  judgment  current  among  men,  are 
plainly  taught  that  if  we  will  have  our  trespasses  for- 
given, the  reparation  and  restitution  which  we  make 
must  be  measured,  not  by  the  standard  of  men,  but  by 
that  of  God,  which  is  absolute  righteousness. 

Yet  again,  in  that  in  the  case  of  all  such  trespasses 
on  the  rights  of  God  or  man  it  was  ordained  that 
the  offering,  unlike  other  sacrifices  intended  to  teach 
other  lessons,  should  be  one  and  the  same,  whether  the 
offender  were  rich  or  poor;  we  are  taught  that  the  extent 
of  our  moral  obligations  or  the  conditions  of  theft*  equit- 
able discharge  are  not  determined  by  a  regard  to  our 
present  ability  to  make  them  good.  Debt  is  debt  by 
whomsoever  owed.  If  a  man  have  appropriated  a  hun- 
dred pounds  of  another  man's  money,  the  moral  obhga- 
tion  of  that  debt  cannot  be  abrogated  by  a  bankrupt  law, 


V.  i4-vi.7.]  THE  GUILT-OFFERING.  169 

allowing  him  to  compromise  at  ten  shillings  in  the 
pound.  The  law  of  man  may  indeed  release  him  from 
liability  to  prosecution,  but  no  law  can  discharge  such 
a  man  from  the  unalterable  obligation  to  pay  penny  for 
penny,  farthing  for  farthing.  There  is  no  bankrupt  law 
in  the  kingdom  of  God.  This,  too,  is  evidently  a  lesson 
quite  as  much  needed  by  Gentiles  and  nominal  Christians 
in  the  nineteenth  century  after  Christ,  as  by  Hebrews 
in  the  fifteenth  century  before  Christ. 

But  the  spiritual  teaching  of  the  guilt-offering  is 
not  yet  exhausted.  For,  like  all  the  other  offerings,  it 
pointed  to  Christ.  He  is  "  the  end  of  the  law  unto 
righteousness"  (Rom.  x.  4),  as  regards  the  guilt-offer- 
ing, as  in  all  else.  As  the  burnt-offering  prefigured 
Christ  the  heavenly  Victim,  in  one  aspect,  and  the 
peace-offering,  Christ  in  another  aspect,  so  the  guilt- 
offering  presents  to  our  adoring  contemplation  yet 
another  view  of  His  sacrificial  work.  While,  as  our 
burnt-offering.  He  became  our  righteousness  in  full  self- 
consecration ;  as  our  peace-offering,  our  life;  as  our 
sin-offering,  the  expiation  for  our  sins ;  so,  as  our 
guilt -offering,  He  made  satisfaction  and  plenary  repara- 
tion in  our  behalf  to  the  God  on  whose  inalienable 
rights  in  us,  by  our  sins  we  had  trespassed  without 
measure. 

Nor  is  this  an  over-refinement  of  exposition.  For  in 
Isa.  liii.  10,  where  both  the  Authorised  and  the  Revised 
Versions  read,  "  shall  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin!^ 
the  margin  of  the  latter  rightly  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  in  the  Hebrew  the  word  here  used  is  the  very 
same  which  through  all  this  Levitical  law  is  rendered 
"  guilt-offering."  And  so  we  are  expressly  told  by  this 
evangelic  prophet,  that  the  Holy  Servant  of  Jehovah, 
the  suffering  Messiah,  in  this  His  sacrificial  work  should 


170  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

make  His  soul  "  a  guilt-offering."  He  became  Himself 
the  complete  and  exhaustive  realisation  of  all  that  in 
sacrifice  which  was  set  forth  in  the  Levitical  guilt- 
offering. 

A  declaration  this  is  which  holds  forth  both  the 
sin  for  which  Christ  atoned,  and  the  Sacrifice  itself, 
in  a  very  distinct  and  peculiar  light.  In  that  Christ's 
sacrifice  was  thus  a  guilt-offering  in  the  sense  of  the 
law,  we  are  taught  that,  in  one  aspect,  our  sins  are 
regarded  by  God,  and  should  therefore  be  regarded  by 
us,  as  debts  which  are  due  from  us  to  God.  This  is, 
indeed,  by  no  means  the  only  aspect  in  which  sin  should 
be  regarded  ;  it  is,  for  example,  rebellion,  high  treason, 
a  deadly  affront  to  the  Supreme  Majesty,  which  must 
be  expiated  with  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering.  But  our 
sins  are  also  of  the  nature  of  debts.  That  is,  God  has 
claims  on  us  for  service  which  w^e  have  never  met ; 
claims  for  a  portion  of  our  substance  which  we  have 
often  withheld,  or  given  grudgingly,  trespassing  thus 
in  "  the  holy  things  of  the  Lord."  Just  as  the  servant 
who  is  set  to  do  his  master's  work,  if,  instead,  he  take 
that  time  to  do  his  own  work,  is  debtor  to  the  full  value 
of  the  service  of  which  his  master  is  thus  defrauded,  so 
stands  the  case  between  the  sinner  and  God.  Just  as 
with  the  agent  who  fails  to  make  due  returns  to  his  prin- 
cipal on  the  moneys  committed  to  him  for  investment, 
using  them  instead  for  himself,  so  stands  the  case 
between  God  and  the  sinner  who  has  used  his  talents,  not 
for  the  Lord,  but  for  himself,  or  has  kept  them  laid  up, 
unused,  in  a  napkin.  Thus,  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
the  correlate  of  this  representation  of  Christ  as  a  guilt- 
offering,  we  find  sin  again  and  again  set  forth  as  a  debt 
which  is  owed  from  man  to  God.  So,  in  the  Lord's 
prayer  we  are  taught  to  pray,  "  Forgive  us  our  debts ; " 


V.  i4-vi7.]  THE  GUILT-OFFERING.  171 

SO,  twice  the  Lord  Himself  in  His  parables  (Matt, 
xviii.  23-35  '}  Luke  vii.  41,  42)  set  forth  the  relation  of 
the  sinner  to  God  as  that  of  the  debtor  to  the  creditor; 
and  concerning  those  on  whom  the  tower  of  Siloam  fell, 
asks  (Luke  xiii.  4),  ''  Think  ye  that  they  were  sinners 
{Greek  *  debtors/)  above  all  that  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  ?  " 
Indeed  so  imbedded  is  this  thought  in  the  conscience  of 
man  that  it  has  been  crystallised  in  our  word  ''  ought," 
which  is  but  the  old  preterite  of  *'  owe  ;  "  as  in  Tyndale's 
New  Testament,  where  we  read  (Luke  vii.  41),  **  there 
was  a  certain  lender,  which  ought  him  five  hundred 
pence."  What  a  startling  conception  is  this,  which 
forms  the  background  to  the  great  *'  guilt-offering " ! 
Man  a  debtor  to  God !  a  debtor  for  service  each  day 
due,  but  no  day  ever  fully  and  perfectly  rendered !  in 
gratitude  for  gifts,  too  often  quite  forgotten,  oftener 
only  paid  in  scanty  part !  We  are  often  burdened  and 
troubled  greatly  about  our  debts  to  men ;  shall  we  not 
be  concerned  about  the  enormous  and  ever  accumulat- 
ing debt  to  God !  Or  is  He  an  easy  creditor,  who  is 
indifferent  whether  these  debts  of  ours  be  met  or  not  ? 
So  think  multitudes ;  but  this  is  not  the  representation 
of  Scripture,  either  in  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament. 
For  in  the  law  it  was  required,  that  if  a  man,  guilty  of 
any  of  these  offences  for  the  forgiveness  of  which  the 
guilt-offering  was  prescribed,  failed  to  confess  and 
bring  the  offering,  and  make  the  restitution  with  the 
added  fifth,  as  commanded  by  the  law,  he  should  be 
brought  before  the  judges,  and  the  full  penalty  of  law 
exacted,  on  the  principle  of  "an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth 
for  a  tooth ! "  And  in  the  New  Testament,  one  of 
those  solemn  parables  of  the  two  debtors  closes  with 
the  awful  words  concerning  one  of  them  who  was 
*'  delivered  to  the  tormentors,"  that  he  should  not  come 


172  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


out  of  prison  till  he  had  "  paid  the  uttermost  farthing." 
Not  a  hint  is  there  in  Holy  Scripture,  of  forgiveness  of 
our  debts  to  God,  except  upon  the  one  condition  of  full 
restitution  made  to  Him  to  whom  the  debt  is  due,  and 
therewith  the  sacrificial  blood  of  a  guilt- offering.  But 
Christ  is  our  Guilt-Offering.  He  is  our  Guilt-Offering, 
in  that  He  Himself  did  that,  really  and  fully,  with  respect 
to  all  our  debts  as  sinful  men  to  God,  which  the  guilt- 
offering  of  Leviticus  symbolised,  but  accomplished  not. 
His  soul  He  made  a  guilt-offering  for  our  trespasses ! 
Isaiah's  words  imply  that  He  should  make  full  restitu- 
tion for  all  that  of  which  we,  as  sinners,  defraud  God. 
He  did  this  by  that  perfect  and  incomparable  service 
of  lowly  obedience  such  as  we  should  render,  but  have 
never  rendered ;  in  which  He  has  made  full  satisfaction 
to  God  for  all  our  innumerable  debts.  He  has  made 
such  satisfaction,  not  by  a  convenient  legal  fiction,  or  in 
a  rhetorical  figure,  or  as  judged  by  any  human  standard. 
Even  as  the  ram  of  the  guilt- offering  was  appraised 
according  to  "the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary,"  so  upon 
our  Lord,  at  the  beginning  of  that  life  of  sacrificial 
service,  was  solemnly  passed  the  Divine  verdict  that 
with  this  antitypical  Victim  of  the  Guilt-Offering,  God 
Himself  was  "well  pleased"  (Matt.  iii.  17). 

Not  only  so.  For  we  cannot  forget  that  according 
to  the  law,  not  only  the  full  restitution  must  be  made, 
but  the  fifth  must  be  added  thereto.  So  with  our 
Lord.  For  who  will  not  confess  that  Christ  not  only 
did  all  that  we  should  have  done,  but,  in  the  ineffable 
depth  of  His  self-humiliation  and  obedience  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross,  paid  therewith  the  added 
fifth  of  the  law.  Said  a  Jewish  Rabbi  to  the  writer,  "  I 
have  never  been  able  to  finish  reading  in  the  Gospel 
the  story  of  the  Jesus  of  Nazareth ;  for  it  too  soon 


V.  i4-vi.7.]  THE  GUILT-OFFERING.  173 

brings  the  tears  to  my  eyes  ! "  So  affecting  even  to 
Jewish  unbeHef  was  this  unparalleled  spectacle,  the 
adorable  Son  of  God  making  Himself  a  guilt-offering, 
and  paying,  in  the  incomparable  perfection  of  His  holy 
obedience,  the  added  fifth  in  our  behalf!  Thus  has 
Christ  "  magnified  this  law  "  of  the  guilt-offering,  and 
''made  it  honourable,"  even  as  He  did  all  law  (Isa. 
xlii.  21). 

And,  as  is  intimated,  by  the  formal  valuation  of  the 
sacrificial  ram,  in  the  type,  even  the  death  of  Christ  as 
the  guilt-offering,  in  one  aspect  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
consummating  act  of  service  in  the  payment  of  debts 
Godward.  Just  as  the  sin-offering  represented  His 
death  in  its  passive  aspect,  as  meeting  the  demands  of 
justice  against  the  sinner  as  a  rebel  under  sentence  of 
death,  by  dying  in  his  stead,  so,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  guilt-offering  represents  that  same  sacrificial  death, 
rather  in  another  aspect,  no  less  clearly  set  forth  in  the 
New  Testament;  namely,  the  supreme  act  of  obedience  to 
the  will  of  God,  whereby  He  discharged  ^*  to  the  utter- 
most farthing,"  even  with  the  added  fifth  of  the  law,  all 
the  transcendent  debt  of  service  due  from  man  to  God. 

This  representation  of  Christ's  work  has  in  all  ages 
been  an  offence,  *'  the  offence  of  the  cross."  All  the 
more  need  we  to  insist  upon  it,  and  never  to  forget,  or 
let  others  forget,  that  Christ  is  expressly  declared  in 
the  Word  of  God  to  have  been  *'a  guilt-offering,"  in 
the  Levitical  sense  of  that  term ;  that,  therefore,  to 
speak  of  His  death  as  effecting  our  salvation  merely 
through  its  moral  influence,  is  to  contradict  and  nullify 
the  Word  of  God.  Well  may  we  set  this  word  in 
Isa.  liii.  10,  concerning  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  against 
all  modern  Unitarian  theology,  and  against  all  Socini- 
anising  teaching ;  all  that  would  maintain  any  view  of 


174  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


Christ's  death  which  excludes  or  ignores  the  divinely 
revealed  fact  that  it  was  in  its  essential  nature  a  guilt- 
offering  ;  and,  because  a  guilt-offering,  therefore  of  the 
nature  of  the  payment  of  a  debt  in  behalf  of  those  for 
whom  He  suffered. 

Most  blessed  truth  this,  for  all  who  can  receive  it ! 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  our  Guilt-Offering !  Like  the 
poor  Israelite,  who  had  defrauded  God  of  that  which 
w^as  His  due,  so  must  we  do ;  coming  before  God, 
confessing  that  wherein  we  have  wronged  Him,  and 
bringing  forth  fruit  meet  for  repentance,  we  must  bring 
and  plead  Christ  in  the  glory  of  His  person,  in  all  the 
perfection  of  His  holy  obedience,  as  our  Guilt-Offering. 
And  therewith  the  ancient  promise  to  the  penitent 
Israelite  becomes  ours  (vi.  7),  ^'  The  priest  shall  make 
atonement  for  him  before  the  Lord,  and  he  shall  be 
forgiven ;  concerning  whatsoever  he  doeth  so  as  to  be 
guilty  thereby." 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  PRIESTS'  PORTIONS. 
Lev.  vi.  16-18,  26;  vii.  6-10,  14,  31-36. 

AFTER  the  law  of  the  guilt-offering  follows  a 
section  (vi.  8-vii.  38)  with  regard  to  the  offerings 
previously  treated,  but  addressed  especially  to  the 
priests,  as  the  foregoing  were  specially  directed  to  the 
people.  Much  of  the  contents  of  this  section  has 
already  passed  before  us,  in  anticipation  of  its  order  in 
the  book,  as  this  has  seemed  necessary  in  order  to  a 
complete  exposition  of  the  several  offerings.  An  im- 
portant part  of  the  section,  however,  relating  to  the 
portion  of  the  offerings  which  was  appointed  for  the 
priests,  has  been  passed  by  until  now,  and  must  claim 
our  brief  attention. 

In  the  verses  indicated  above,  it  is  ordered  that  of  the 
meal-offerings,  the  sin-offerings,  and  the  guilt-offerings, 
all  that  was  not  burnt,  as  also  the  wave-breast  and 
the  heave-shoulder  of  the  peace-offerings,  should  be 
for  Aaron  and  his  sons.  In  particular,  it  is  directed 
that  the  priest's  portion  of  the  sin-offering  and  the 
guilt-offering  shall  be  eaten  by  "  the  priest  that  maketh 
atonement  therewith  "  (vii.  7) ;  and  that  of  the  meal- 
offerings  prepared  in  the  oven,  the  frying-pan,  or  the 
baking-pan,  all  that  is  not  burned  upon  the  altar, 
according  to  the  law  of  chap,  ii.,  shall  be  eaten  by  ^'  the 


176  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

priest  that  offereth  it ; "  and  that  of  every  meal-offering 
mingled  with  oil,  or  dry,  the  same  part  "  shall  all  the 
sons  of  Aaron  have,  one  as  well  as  another  "  (vii.  9. 
10).  Of  the  burnt-offering,  all  the  flesh  being  burned, 
the  hide  alone  fell  to  the  officiating  priest  as  his  per- 
quisite  (vii.  8). 

These  regulations  are  explained  in  the  concluding 
verses  of  the  section  (vii.  35,  36)  as  follows,  *^  This 
is  the  anointing-portion  of  Aaron,  and  the  anointing- 
portion  of  his  sons,  out  of  the  offerings  of  the  Lord 
made  by  fire,  in  the  day  when  he  presented  them  to 
minister  unto  the  Lord  in  the  priest's  office ;  which  the 
Lord  commanded  to  be  given  them  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  in  the  day  that  he  anointed  them.  It  is  a  due 
for  ever  throughout  their  generations." 

Hence,  it  is  plain  that  this  use  which  was  to  be  made 
of  certain  parts  of  certain  offerings  does  not  touch  the 
question  of  the  consecration  of  the  whole  to  God.  The 
whole  of  each  offering  is  none  the  less  wholly  accepted 
and  appropriated  by  God,  that  He  designates  a  part  of 
it  to  the  maintenance  of  the  priesthood.  That  even  as 
thus  used  by  the  priest  it  is  used  by  him  as  something 
belonging  to  God,  is  indicated  by  the  phrase  used,  ^'  it 
is  most  holy"  (vi.  17)  ;  expressive  words,  which  in  the 
law  of  the  offerings  always  have  a  technical  use,  as 
denoting  those  things  of  which  only  the  sons  of  Aaron 
might  partake,  and  that  only  in  the  holy  place.  In  the 
case  of  the  meal-offering,  its  peculiarly  sacred  character 
as  belonging,  the  whole  of  it,  exclusively  to  God,  is 
further  marked  by  the  additional  injunctions  that  it 
should  be  "  eaten  without  leaven  in  a  holy  place  "  (vi. 
16);  and  that  whosoever  touched  these  offerings  should 
be  holy  (vi.  1 8) ;  that  is,  he  should  be  as  a  man 
separated  to  God,  under  all  the  restrictions  (doubtless, 


vii.  28-34.]  THE  PRIESTS'  PORTIONS.  177 

without  the  privileges,)  which  belonged  to  the  priest- 
hood, as  men  set  apart  for  God's  service.  In  the 
eating  of  their  portion  of  the  various  offerings  by  the 
priests,  we  are  to  recognise  no  official  act :  we  simply 
see  the  servants  of  God  supported  by  the  bread  of  His 
table. 

This  last  thought,  which  is  absent  in  the  case  of  no 
one  of  the  offerings,^  is  brought  out  with  special  clear- 
ness and  fulness  in  the  ceremonial  connected  with  the 
peace-offerings  (vii.  28-34).  In  this  case,  certain  parts, 
the  right  thigh  (or  shoulder?)  and  the  breast,  are 
set  apart  as  the  due  of  the  priest.  The  selection  of 
these  is  determined  by  the  principle  which  marks  all 
the  Levitical  legislation  :  God  and  those  who  represent 
Him  are  to  be  honoured  by  the  consecration  of  the  best 
of  everything.  In  the  animals  used  upon  the  altar, 
these  were  regarded  as  the  choice  parts,  and  are  indeed 
referred  to  as  such  in  other  Scriptures.  But,  in  order 
that  neither  the  priest  nor  the  people  may  imagine  that 
the  priest  receives  these  as  a  man  from  his  fellow- 
men,  but  may  understand  that  they  are  given  to  God, 
and  that  it  is  from  God  that  the  priest  now  receives 
them,  as  His  servant,  fed  from  His  table ;  to  this  end, 
certain  ceremonies  were  ordained  to  be  used  with  these 
parts ;  the  breast  was  to  be  ''  heaved,"  the  thigh  was 
to  be  ^' waved,"  before  the  Lord.  What  was  the 
meaning  of  these  actions  ? 

The  breast  was  to  be  "  heaved  ; "  that  is,  elevated 
heavenward.  The  symbolic  meaning  of  this  act  can 
scarcely  be  missed.  By  it,  the  priest  acknowledged 
his   dependence    upon   God    for    the    supply   of   this 

*  Even  in  the  burnt- offering,  the  hide  of  the  victim  was  assigned 
to  the  priest  (vii.  8). 

12 


178  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

sacrificial  food,  and,  again,  by  this  act  consecrated  it 
anew  to  Him  as  the  One  that  sitteth  in  the  heavens. 

But  God  is  not  only  the  One  that  "  sitteth  in  the 
heavens  ; "  He  is  the  God  who  has  condescended  also 
to  dwell  among  men,  and  especially  in  the  tent  of 
meeting  in  the  midst  of  Israel.  And  thus,  as  by  the 
elevation  of  the  breast  heavenward,  God,  the  Giver, 
was  recognised  as  the  One  enthroned  in  heaven,  so 
by  the  "waving"  of  the  thigh,  which,  as  the  rabbis 
tell  us,  was  a  movement  backward  and  forward,  to  and 
from  the  altar.  He  was  recognised  also  as  Jehovah,  who 
had  condescended  from  heaven  to  dwell  in  the  midst 
of  His  people.  Like  the  "  heaving,"  so  the  *'  waving," 
then,  was  an  act  of  acknowledgment  and  consecration 
to  God  ;  the  former,  to  God,  as  in  heaven,  the  God  of 
creation ;  the  other,  to  God,  as  the  God  of  the  altar, 
the  God  of  redemption.  And  that  this  is  the  true 
significance  of  these  acts  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that 
in  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  account  of  the  gold  and 
silver  brought  by  the  people  for  the  preparation  of  the 
tabernacle  (Exod.  xxxv.  22),  the  same  word  is  used  to 
describe  the  presentation  of  these  offerings  which  is 
here  used  of  the  wave-offering. 

And  so  in  the  peace-offering  the  principle  is  amply 
illustrated  upon  which  the  priests  received  their  dues. 
The  worshippers  bring  their  offerings,  and  present 
them,  not  to  the  priest,  but  through  him  to  God  ;  who, 
then,  having  used  such  parts  as  He  will  in  the  service 
of  the  sanctuary,  gives  again  such  parts  of  them  as  He 
pleases  to  the  priests. 

The  lesson  of  these  arrangements  lies  immediately 
before  us.  They  were  intended  to  teach  Israel,  and, 
according  to  the  New  Testament,  are  also  designed  to 
teach  us,  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  those  who  give 


vii. 28-34-]  THE  PRIESTS'  PORTIONS.  179 

up  secular  occupations  to  devote  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  His  house  should  be  supported  by  the  free- 
will offerings  of  God's  people.  Very  strange  indeed  it 
is  to  hear  a  few  small  sects  in  our  day  denying  this. 
For  the  Apostle  Paul  argues  at  length  to  this  effect,  and 
calls  the  attention  of  the  Corinthians  (i  Cor.  ix.  13,  14) 
to  the  fact  that  the  principle  expressed  in  this  ordinance 
of  the  law  of  Moses  has  not  been  set  aside,  but  holds 
good  in  this  dispensation.  "  Know  ye  not  that  they 
which  .  .  .  wait  upon  the  altar  have  their  portion  with 
the  altar  ?  Even  so  did  the  Lord  ordain  that  they 
which  proclaim  the  Gospel  should  live  of  the  Gospel." 
The  principle  plainly  covers  the  case  of  all  such  as 
give  up  secular  callings  to  devote  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  Word,  whether  to  proclaim  the  Gospel 
in  any  of  the  great  mission  fields,  or  to  exercise  the 
pastorate  of  the  local  church.  Such  are  ever  to  be 
supported  out  of  the  consecrated  offerings  of  God's 
people. 

To  point  in  disparagement  of  modern  "  hireling " 
ministers  and  missionaries,  as  some  have  done,  to  the 
case  of  Paul,  who  laboured  with  his  own  hands,  that  he 
might  not  be  chargeable  to  those  to  whom  he  ministered, 
is  singularly  inapt,  seeing  that  in  the  chapter  above 
referred  to  he  expressly  vindicates  his  right  to  receive 
of  the  Corinthians  his  support,  and  in  this  Second 
Epistle  to  them  even  seems  to  express  a  doubt  (2  Cor. 
xii.  1 3)  whether  in  refusing,  as  he  did,  to  receive  sup- 
port from  them,  he  had  not  done  them  a  ''  wrong," 
making  them  thus  "  inferior  to  the  rest  of  the  churches," 
from  whom,  in  fact,  he  did  receive  such  material  aid 
(Phil.  iv.  10,  16). 

And  if  ever  claims  of  this  kind  upon  our  benevolence 
and  liberality  seem  to  be  heavy,  and  if  to  nature  the 


i8o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

burden  is  sometimes  irksome,  we  shall  do  well  to 
remember  that  the  requirement  is  not  of  man,  and  not 
of  the  Church,  but  of  God.  It  comes  to  us  with  the 
double  authority  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  of  the 
Law  and  the  Gospel.  And  it  will  certainly  help  us  all 
to  give  to  these  ends  the  more  gladly,  if  we  keep  that 
in  mind  which  the  Levitical  law  so  carefully  kept  before 
Israel,  that  the  giving  was  to  be  regarded  by  them  as 
not  to  the  priesthood,  but  to  the  Lord,  and  that  in 
our  giving  outwardly  to  support  the  ministry  of  God's 
Word,  we  give,  really,  to  the  Lord  Himself.  And  it 
stands  written  (Matt.  x.  42)  :  *^  Whosoever  shall  give 
to  drink  unto  one  of  these  little  ones  a  cup  of  cold 
water  only,  ....  he  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his  reward" 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS, 
AND   OF  THE   TABERNACLE. 

Lev.  viii.  I -36. 

THE  second  section  of  the  book  of  Leviticus  (viii. 
i-x.  20)  is  historical,  and  describes  (viii.)  the 
consecration  of  the  tabernacle  and  of  Aaron  and  his 
sons,  (ix.)  their  induction  into  the  duties  of  their  office, 
and,  finally  (x.),  the  terrible  judgment  by  which  the 
high  sanctity  of  the  priestly  office  and  of  the  tabernacle 
service  was  very  solemnly  impressed  upon  them  and  all 
the  people. 

First  in  order  (chap,  viii.)  is  described  the  cere- 
monial of  consecration.  We  read  (vv.  1-4) :  ''And  the 
Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Take  Aaron  and  his 
sons  with  him,  and  the  garments,  and  the  anointing  oil, 
and  the  bullock  of  the  sin  offering,  and  the  two  rams, 
and  the  basket  of  unleavened  bread  ;  and  assemble  thou 
all  the  congregation  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting. 
And  Moses  did  as  the  Lord  commanded  him  ;  and  the 
congregation  was  assembled  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of 
meeting." 

These  words  refer  us  back  to  Exod.  xxviii.,  xxix.,  in 
which  are  recorded  the  full  directions  previously  given 
for  the  making  of  the  garments  and  the  oil  of  anointing, 
and  for  the  ceremonial  of  the  consecration  of  the  priests. 
The   law  of  offerings   having  been   delivered,  Moses 


1 82  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


now  proceeds  to  consecrate  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  the 
priestly  office,  according  to  the  commandment  given; 
and  to  this  end,  by  Divine  direction,  he  orders  "  all  the 
congregation  "  to  be  assembled  "  at  the  door  of  the  tent 
of  meeting."  In  this  last  statement  some  have  seen 
a  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  the  whole  account  as 
fabulous,  insisting  that  it  is  palpably  absurd  to  suppose 
that  a  congregation  numbering  some  millions  could  be 
assembled  at  the  door  of  a  single  tent !  But,  surely, 
if  the  words  are  to  be  taken  in  the  ultra-literal  sense 
required  in  order  to  make  out  this  difficulty,  the  im- 
possibiUty  must  have  been  equally  evident  to  the 
supposed  fabricator  of  the  fiction ;  and  it  is  yet  more 
absurd  to  suppose  that  he  should  ever  have  intended 
his  words  to  be  pressed  to  such  a  rigid  literality.  Two 
explanations  lie  before  us,  either  of  which  meets  the 
supposed  difficulty  ;  the  one,  that  endorsed  by  Dill- 
mann,^  that  the  congregation  was  gathered  in  their 
appointed  representatives  ;  the  other,  that  which  refuses 
to  see  in  the  words  a  statement  that  every  individual 
in  the  nation  was  literally  "  at  the  door,"  and  further 
reminds  us  that,  inasmuch  as  the  ceremonies  of  the 
consecration  are  said  to  have  continued  seven  days, 
we  are  not,  by  the  terms  of  the  narrative,  required  to 
believe  that  all,  in  any  sense,  were  present,  either  at 
the  very  beginning  or  at  any  one  time  during  that 
week.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  by  a  captious 
criticism  of  this  kind,  any  narrative,  however  sober, 
might  be  shown  to  be  absurd. 

The  consecration  ceremonial  was  introduced  by  a 
solemn  declaration  made  by  Moses  to  assembled  Israel, 
that  the  impressive  rites  which  they  were  now  about  to 
witness,  were  of  Divine  appointment.     We  read  (ver. 

'  See  **  Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  2  Aufl.,  p.  462. 


viii.i-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  183 

5),   ^'  Moses  said   unto  the  congregation,  This  is  the 
thing  which  the  Lord  hath  commanded  to  be  done." 

Just  here  we  may  pause  to  note  the  great  emphasis 
which  the  narrative  lays  upon  this  fact  of  the  Divine 
appointment  of  all  pertaining  to  these  consecration  rites. 
Not  only  is  this  Divine  ordination  of  all  thus  declared 
at  the  beginning,  but  in  connection  with  each  of  the 
chief  parts  of  the  ceremonial  the  formula  is  repeated, 
*^as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses."  Also,  at  the  close 
of  the  first  day's  rites,  Moses  twice  reminds  Aaron 
and  his  sons  that  this  whole  ritual,  in  all  its  parts,  is 
for  them  an  ordinance  of  God,  and  is  to  be  regarded 
accordingly,  upon  pain  of  death  (vv.  34,  35).  And 
the  narrative  of  the  chapter  closes  (ver.  36)  with  the 
words,  *^  Aaron  and  his  sons  did  all  the  things  which 
the  Lord  commanded  by  the  hand  of  Moses."  Twelve 
times  in  this  one  chapter  is  reference  thus  made  to  the 
Divine  appointment  of  these  consecration  rites. 

This  is  full  of  significance  and  instruction.  It  is  of 
the  highest  importance  in  an  apologetic  way.  For  it 
is  self-evident  that  this  twelvefold  affirmation,  twelve 
times  directly  contradicts  the  modern  theory  of  the  late 
origin  and  human  invention  of  the  Levitical  priesthood. 
There  is  no  evading  of  the  issue  which  is  thus  placed 
squarely  before  us.  To  talk  of  the  inspiration  from 
God,  in  any  sense  possible  to  that  word,  of  a  writing 
containing  such  affirmations,  so  numerous,  formal,  and 
emphatic,  if  the  critics  referred  to  are  right,  and  these 
affirmations  are  all  false,  is  absurd.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  inspired  falsehood. 

Again,  a  great  spiritual  truth  is  herein  brought 
before  us,  which  concerns  believers  in  all  ages.  It  is 
set  forth  in  so  many  words  in  Heb.  v.  4,  where  the 
writer,  laying  down  the  essential  conditions  of  priest- 


1 84  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

hood,  specially  mentions  Divine  appointment  as  one  of 
these  ;  which  he  affirms  as  satisfied  in  the  high-priest- 
hood of  Christ :  *'  No  man  taketh  the  honour  unto  him- 
self, but  when  he  is  called  of  God,  even  as  was  Aaron. 
So  Christ  also  glorified  not  Himself  to  be  made  a  high 
priest."  Fundamental  to  Christian  faith  and  life  is  this 
thought :  priesthood  is  not  of  man,  but  of  God.  In 
particular,  in  all  that  Christ  has  done  and  is  still  doing 
as  the  High  Priest,  in  the  true  holiest.  He  is  acting 
under  Divine  appointment. 

And  we  are  hereby  pointed  to  the  truth  of  which  some 
may  need  to  be  reminded,  that  the  work  of  our  Lord  in 
our  behalf,  and  that  of  the  whole  universe  into  which 
sin  has  entered,  has  its  cause  and  origin  in  the  mind  and 
gracious  will  of  the  Father.  It  was  in  His  incompre- 
hensible love,  who  appointed  the  priestly  office,  that  the 
whole  work  of  atonement,  and  therewith  purification 
and  full  redemption,  had  its  mysterious  origin.  The 
thoughtful  reader  of  the  Gospels  will  hardly  need  to  be 
reminded  how  constantly  our  blessed  Lord,  in  the  days 
of  His  high-priestly  service  upon  earth,  acted  in  all  that 
He  did  under  the  consciousness,  often  expressed,  of  His 
appointment  by  the  Father  to  this  work.  Thus,  Aaron 
in  the  solemn  ceremonial  of  those  days  of  consecration, 
as  ever  afterward,  doing  ''  all  the  things  which  the  Lord 
commanded  by  the  hand  of  Moses,"  in  so  doing  fitly 
represented  Him  who  should  come  afterward,  who  said 
of  Himself  (John  vi.  38),  ^'  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not 
to  do  Mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me." 

The  Levitical  Priesthood  and  Tabernacle 
AS  Types. 

In  order  to  any  profitable  study  of  the  following 
ceremonial,  it  is  indispensable  to  have  distinctly  before 


viii.i-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  185 

US  the  New  Testament  teaching  as  to  the  typical  signi- 
ficance of  the  priesthood  and  the  tabernacle.  A  few 
words  on  this  subject,  therefore,  seem  to  be  needful 
as  preliminary  to  more  detailed  exposition.  As  to  the 
typical  character  of  Aaron,  as  high  priest,  the  New 
Testament  leaves  us  no  room  for  doubt.  Throughout 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Christ  is  held  forth  as  the 
true  and  heavenly  High  Priest,  of  whom  Aaron,  with  his 
successors,  was  an  eminent  type. 

As  regards  the  other  priests,  while  it  is  true  that, 
considered  in  themselves,  and  without  reference  to  the 
high  priest,  each  of  them  also,  in  the  performance  of  his 
daily  functions  in  the  tabernacle,  was  a  lesser  type  of 
Christ,  as  is  intimated  in  Heb.  x.  11,  yet,  as  contrasted 
with  the  high  priest,  who  was  ever  one,  while  they  were 
many,  it  is  plain  that  another  typical  reference  must  be 
sought  for  the  ordinary  priesthood.  What  that  may  be 
is  suggested  to  us  in  several  New  Testament  passages ; 
as,  especially,  in  Rev.  v.  10,  where  the  whole  body  of 
believers,  bought  by  the  blood  of  the  slain  Lamb,  is 
said  to  have  been  made  "  unto  our  God  a  kingdom  and 
priests ; "  with  which  may  be  compared  Heb.  xiii.  10, 
where  it  is  said,  **  We  have  an  altar,  whereof  they  have 
no  right  to  eat  which  serve  the  tabernacle " ;  words 
which  plainly  assume  the  priesthood  of  all  believers  in 
Christ,  as  the  antitype  of  the  priesthood  of  the  Levitical 
tabernacle.^ 

As  to  the  typical  meaning  of  the  tabernacle,  which 
also  is  anointed  in  the  consecration  ceremonial,  there 

^  Especially  striking  in  this  connection  is  the  expression  used  by 
the  Apostle  Paul  (Rom.  xv.  16),  where  he  speaks  of  himself  as  "a 
minister  of  Christ  Jesus  unto  the  Gentiles,  ministering  the  Gospel  of 
God ; "  in  which  last  phrase,  the  Greek  word  denotes  "  ministration 
as  a  priest."     See  R.V.,  margin. 


THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS, 


has  been  much  difference  of  opinion.  That  it  was 
typical  is  declared,  in  so  many  words,  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  (viii.  5),  where  the  Levitical  priests  are 
said  to  have  served  ^'  that  which  is  a  copy  and  shadow 
of  the  heavenly  things;"  as  also  ix.  24,  where  we 
read,  ^^  Christ  entered  not  into  a  holy  place  made  with 
hands,  like  in  pattern  to  the  true ;  but  into  heaven 
itself,  now  to  appear  before  the  face  of  God  for  us." 
But  when  we  ask  what  then  were  "  the  heavenly  things  " 
of  which  the  tabernacle  was  "  the  copy  and  shadow," 
we  have  different  answers. 

Many  have  replied  that  the  antitype  of  the  tabernacle, 
as  of  the  temple,  was  the  Church  of  believers ;  and,  at 
first  thought,  with  some  apparent  Scriptural  reason. 
For  it  is  certain  that  Christians  are  declared  (i  Cor. 
iii.  16)  to  be  the  temple  of  the  living  God  ;  where,  how- 
ever, it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  original  word  denotes,  not 
the  temple  or  tabernacle  in  general,  but  the  ^'  sanctuary  " 
or  inner  shrine — the  "  holy  of  holies."  More  to  the  point 
is  I  Peter  ii.  5,  where  it  is  said  to  Christians,  ^' Ye  also, 
as  living  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house."  Such 
passages  as  these  do  certainly  warrant  us  in  saying  that 
the  tabernacle,  and  especially  the  inner  sanctuary,  as 
the  special  place  of  the  Divine  habitation  and  manifes- 
tation, did  in  so  far  typify  the  Church. 

But  when  we  consider  the  tabernacle,  not  in  itself, 
but  in  relation  to  its  priesthood  and  ministry,  the  ex- 
planation fails,  and  we  fall  into  confusion.  As  when 
the  priests  are  considered,  not  in  themselves,  but  in 
their  relation  to  the  high  priest,  we  are  compelled  to 
seek  an  antitype  different  from  the  Antitype  of  the 
high  priest,  so  in  this  case.  To  identify  the  typical 
meaning  of  the  tabernacle,  considered  as  a  part  of  a 
whole  S3'stem  and  order,  with  that  of  the  priesthood 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  187 

who  serve  in  it,  is  to  throw  that  whole  typical  system 
into  confusion.  Furthermore,  this  cannot  be  har- 
monised with  a  number  of  New  Testament  expressions 
with  regard  to  the  tabernacle  and  temple,  as  related  to 
the  high  priesthood  of  our  Lord.  It  is  hard  to  see,  for 
example,  how  the  Church  of  believers  could  be  properly 
described  as  **  things  in  the  heavens."  Moreover,  we 
are  expressly  taught  (Heb.  ix.  24),  that  the  Antitype 
of  the  Holy  Place  into  which  the  high  priest  entered 
every  year,  with  blood,  was  "heaven  itself,"  "the  pre- 
sence of  God ; "  and  again.  His  ascension  to  the  right 
hand  of  God  is  described  (Heb.  iv.  14,  R.V.),  with 
evident  allusion  to  the  passing  of  the  high  priest 
through  the  Holy  Place  into  the  Holiest,  as  a  passing 
*^ through  the  heavens;"  and  also  (Heb.  ix.  11),  as  an 
entering  into  the  Holy  Place,  "  through  the  greater  and 
more  perfect  tabernacle."  These  expressions  exclude 
reference  to  the  Church  of  Christ  as  the  antitype  of 
the  earthly  tabernacle. 

Others,  again,  have  regarded  the  tabernacle  as  a  type 
of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  referring  in  proof  to 
John  ii.  19-21,  where  our  Lord  speaks  of  "the  temple 
of  His  body ; "  and  also  to  Heb.  x.  19,  20,  where  it  is 
said  that  believers  have  access  to  the  Holiest  "  by  a 
new  and  living  way,  which  He  dedicated  for  us  through 
the  veil,  that  is  to  say.  His  flesh." 

As  regards  the  first  of  these  passages,  we  should 
note  that  the  original  word  is,  again,  not  the  word  for 
the  temple  in  general,  but  that  which  is  invariably  used 
to  denote  the  inner  sanctuary,  as  the  special  shrine  of 
Jehovah's  presence  :  so  that  it  really  gives  us  no  war- 
rant for  affirming  that  the  tabernacle,  as  a  whole,  was  a 
type  of  our  Lord's  humanity  ;  nor,  on  that  supposition, 
does  it  seem  possible  to  explain   the  meaning  of  the 


188  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

three  parts  into  which  the  tabernacle  was  divided. 
And  the  second  passage  referred  to  is  no  more  to 
the  point.  For  the  writer  had  only  a  little  before 
described  the  tabernacle  as  a  "  pattern  of  things  in 
the  heavens;"  words  which,  surely,  could  not  be  applied 
to  the  humanity  in  which  our  Lord  appeared  in  His 
incarnation  and  humiliation, — a  humanity  which  was 
not  a  thing  "  of  the  heavens,"  but  of  the  earth.  The 
reference  to  the  ^'  flesh  "  of  Christ,  as  being  the  veil 
through  which  He  passed  into  the  Holiest  (Heb.  x. 
19,  20)  is  merely  by  way  of  illustration,  and  not  of 
typical  interpretation.  The  thought  of  the  inspired 
writer  appears  to  be  this  Just  as,  in  the  Levitical 
tabernacle,  the  veil  must  be  parted  before  the  high 
priest  could  go  into  the  Holiest  Place,  even  so  was  it 
necessary  that  the  flesh  of  our  Lord  should  be  rent  in 
order  that  thus,  through  death,  it  might  be  possible  for 
Him  to  enter  into  the  true  holiest.  The  thought  has 
been  happily  expressed  by  Delitzsch,  thus  :  "  While 
He  was  with  us  here  below,  the  weak,  limit-bound,  and 
mortal  flesh  which  He  had  assumed  for  our  sakes  hung 
like  a  curtain  between  Him  and  the  Divine  sanctuary 
into  which  He  would  enter;  and  in  order  to  such 
entrance,  this  curtain  had  to  be  withdrawn  by  death, 
even  as  the  high  priest  had  to  draw  aside  the  temple 
veil  in  order  to  make  his  entry  to  the  Holy  of 
Holies."  1 

Not  to  review  other  opinions  on  this  matter,  the 
various  expressions  used  constrain  us  to  regard  the 
tabernacle  as  typifying  the  universe  itself,  measured 
and  appointed  in  all  its  parts  by  infinite  wisdom,  as  the 
abode  of  Him  who  ''filleth  immensity  with  His  presence," 

'  "  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  172. 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  189 

the  place  of  the  Divine  manifestation,  and  the  abode 
of  His  holiness.  In  the  outer  court,  where  the  victims 
were  offered,  we  have  this  world  of  sense  in  which  we 
live,  in  which  our  Lord  was  offered  in  the  sight  of  all ; 
in  the  Holy  Place,  and  the  Holy  of  Holies,  the  unseen 
and  heavenly  worlds,  through  the  former  of  which  our 
Lord  is  represented  as  having  passed  (Heb.  iv.  14, 
ix.  11)  that  He  might  appear  with  His  blood  in  the  true 
Holiest,  where  God  in  the  innermost  shrine  of  His  glory 
"  covereth  Himself  with  light  as  with  a  garment."  For 
this  cosmical  dwelling-place  of  the  Most  High  God  has 
been  defiled  by  sin,  which,  as  it  were,  has  profaned  the 
whole  sanctuary ;  for  we  read  (Col.  i.  20),  that  not  only 
"  things  upon  the  earth,"  but  also  ^*  things  in  the 
heavens,"  are  to  be  *^  reconciled  "  through  Christ,  even 
"  through  the  blood  of  His  cross ; "  and,  still  more 
explicitly,  to  the  same  effect  (Heb.  ix.  23),  that  as  the 
typical  ''copies  of  the  things  in  the  heavens"  needed 
to  be  cleansed  with  the  blood  of  bullocks  and  of 
goats,  so  "it  was  necessary  that  .  .  .  the  heavenly 
things  themselves  should  be  cleansed  with  better 
sacrifices  than  these."  And  so,  at  this  present  time, 
Christ,  as  the  High  Priest  of  this  cosmical  tabernacle, 
''not  made  with  hands,"  having  offered  His  great 
sacrifice  for  sins  for  ever,  is  now  engaged  in  carrying 
out  His  work  of  cleansing  the  people  of  God,  and  the 
earthly  and  the  heavenly  sanctuary,  to  the  uttermost 
completion. 

With  these  preliminary  words,  which  have  seemed 
essential  to  the  exposition  of  these  chapters,  we 
are  now  prepared  to  consider  the  ceremonial  of 
the  consecration  of  the  priesthood  and  tabernacle, 
and  the  spiritual  meaning  which  it  was  intended  to 
convey. 


I90  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

The  Washing  with  Water. 

viii.  6. 

"  And  Moses  brought  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  washed  them  with 
water." 

The  consecration  ceremonies  consisted  of  four  parts, 
namely,  the  Washing,  the  Investiture,  the  Anointing, 
and  the  Sacrifices.  Of  these,  first  in  order  was  the 
Washing.  We  read  that  ''  Moses  " — acting  throughout, 
we  must  remember,  as  Mediator,  representing  God— 
"  brought  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  washed  them  with 
water."  The  meaning  of  this  act  is  so  evident  as  not  to 
have  been  called  in  question.  Washing  ever  signifies 
cleansing  ;  the  ceremonial  cleansing  of  the  body,  there- 
fore, in  symbol  ever  represents  the  inward  purification 
of  the  spirit. 

Of  this  usage  the  Biblical  illustrations  are  very 
numerous.  Thus,  the  spiritual  purification  of  Israel 
in  the  latter  day  is  described  (Isa.  iv.  4)  by  the  same 
word  as  is  used  here,  as  a  washing  away  of  ^'  the  filth 
of  the  daughters  of  Zion  "  by  the  Lord.  So,  again,  in 
the  New  Testament,  we  read  that  Christ  declared  unto 
Nicodemus  that  in  order  to  see  the  kingdom  of  God  a 
man  must  be  born  again,  *^  of  water  and  the  Spirit,"  and 
in  the  Epistle  to  Titus  (iii.  5)  we  read  of  a  cleansing  of 
the  Church  "  with  the  washing  (ntarg.y  laver)  of  water, 
by  the  Word,"  even  the  "  washing  of  regeneration." 
The  symbohsm  in  this  case,  therefore,  points  to  cleansing 
from  the  defilement  of  sin  as  a  fundamental  condition  of 
priesthood.  As  regards  our  Lord  indeed,  such  cleansing 
was  no  more  needed  for  His  high  priesthood  than  was 
the  sin-offering  for  Himself;  for  in  His  holy  incarnation, 
though  He  took  our  nature  indeed  with  all  the  conse- 
quences and  infirmities  consequent  on  sin   He  was  yet 


viii.i-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  191 

"  without  sin."  But  all  the  more  it  was  necessary  in 
the  symbolism  that  if  Aaron  was  to  typify  the  sinless 
Christ  of  God  he  must  be  cleansed  with  water,  in  type 
of  the  cleansing  of  human  nature,  without  which  no 
man  can  approach  to  God.  And  in  that  not  only  Aaron, 
but  also  his  sons,  the  ordinary  priests,  were  thus 
cleansed,  we  are  in  the  ordinance  significantly  pointed 
to  the  deep  spiritual  truth  that  they  who  are  called  to 
be  priests  to  God  must  be  qualified  for  this  office,  first 
of  all,  by  the  cleansing  of  their  human  nature  through 
the  washing  of  regeneration,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

The  Investiture. 

viii.  7-9 

"And  he  put  upon  him  the  coat,  and  girded  him  with  the  girdle, 
and  clothed  him  with  the  robe,  and  put  the  ephod  upon  him,  and  he 
girded  him  with  the  cunningly  woven  band  of  the  ephod,  and  bound 
it  unto  him  therewith.  And  he  placed  the  breastplate  upon  him  :  and 
in  the  breastplate  he  put  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim.  And  he  set  the 
mitre  upon  his  head :  and  upon  the  mitre,  in  front,  did  he  set  the 
golden  plate,  the  holy  crown ;  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses." 

The  next  ceremony  of  the  consecration  was  the  In- 
vestiture of  Aaron  with  his  official,  high-priestly  robes, 
as  they  had  been  appointed  of  God  to  be  made  (Exod. 
xxviii.).  The  investiture  of  the  sons  of  Aaron  signi- 
ficantly takes  place  only  after  the  anointing  of  the 
tabernacle,  and  of  Aaron  as  high  priest.  Of  the  investi- 
ture of  Aaron  we  read  in  vv.  7-9,  above. 

As  these  garments  were  official,  we  must  needs  re- 
gard them  as  symbolical ;  a  thought  which  is  the  more 
emphasised  by  the  very  minute  and  special  directions 
given  by  the  Lord  for  making  them.  Nothing  was  left 
to  the  fancy  of  man ;  all  was  prescribed  by  the  Lord. 
The  official  robes  of  the  high  priest  consisted  of  eight 


192  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

pieces,  four  of  which,  the  coat,  the  girdle,  the  turban 
(or  *'  mitre  "),  and  the  breeches,  were,  with  the  exception 
of  the  turban,  of  white  linen,  and  identical  in  every 
respect  with  the  official  dress  of  the  ordinary  priests. 

Four  pieces  more  were  peculiar  to  himself,  the  special 
insignia  of  his  office,  and  unlike  the  dress  of  the 
ordinary  priest,  were  richly  made  in  gold  and  various 
colours,  *' garments  for  glory  and  for  beauty."  These 
were  :  the  robe  of  the  ephod,  made  all  of  blue,  with  a 
border  of  pendant  pomegranates  and  golden  bells  in 
alternation  ;  the  ephod  itself  consisting  of  two  pieces, 
broidered  in  gold  and  blue,  purple,  scarlet,  and  fine 
white  linen,  the  one  hanging  in  front,  the  other  behind, 
over  the  robe  of  the  ephod,  and  joined  on  the  shoulders 
with  two  onyx  stones,  on  which  were  graven  the  names 
of  the  twelve  tribes,  six  on  the  one  shoulder  and  six 
on  the  other  ;  it  was  girt  about  him  with  a  girdle  of  the 
same  material  and  colours.  The  third  was  the  breast- 
plate, which  was  a  double  square  of  the  same  material 
and  colours  as  the  ephod,  within  the  fold  of  which,  as 
it  hung  from  his  shoulders  by  golden  chains,  was 
placed  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim,  whatever  these 
may  have  been,  and  upon  the  front  of  which  were  set 
twelve  precious  stones,  on  which,  severally,  were  en- 
graved the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  the  children 
of  Israel.  And  the  fourth  and  last  article  of  his  attire 
was  "  the  golden  plate,  the  holy  crown  ; "  a  band  of 
gold  bound  about  his  forehead  over  the  turban,  with 
blue  lace,  on  which  were  engraven  the  words,  **  Holi- 
ness to  Jehovah." 

This  dress  of  the  high  priest  represented  him,  in  the 
first  place,  as  the  appointed  minister  of  the  tabernacle. 
The  number  of  pieces,  twice  four,  like  the  four  of  the 
common  priests'  attire,  answered  to  the  four  which  was 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  193 


represented  in  the  ground  plan  of  the  tabernacle,  quad- 
rangular both  in  its  form  as  a  whole  and  in  its  several 
parts,  the  Holy  of  Holies  being  a  perfect  cube ;  four 
being  in  Scripture  constantly  the  number  which  sym- 
bolises the  universe,  as  created  by  God  and  bearing 
witness  to  Him.  So  also  the  garments  of  the  high 
priest  marked  him  as  the  minister  of  the  tabernacle 
by  their  colours,  also  four  in  number,  and  the  same  as 
those  of  the  latter,  namely,  blue,  purple,  scarlet,  and 
white. 

But  the  official  robes  of  the  high  priest  marked 
him,  in  the  second  place,  as  the  servant  of  the  God 
of  the  tabernacle^  whose  livery  he  wore.  For  these 
colours,  various  modifications  of  light,  all  thus  had  a 
symbolic  reference  to  the  God  of  light,  who  made  the 
universe  of  which  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  was  a  type.  Of 
these,  the  blue,  the  colour  of  the  overarching  heaven, 
has  been  in  many  lands  and  religions  naturally  re- 
garded as  the  colour  symbolising  God,  as  the  God  of 
the  heaven,  bowing  to  the  earth  in  condescending  love 
and  self-revelation.  In  like  manner,  we  find  it  re- 
peatedly recurring  in  the  symbolic  manifestations  of 
Jehovah  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  where  it  always  brings 
God  before  us  with  special  reference  to  His  condescend- 
ing love  as  entering  into  covenant  with  man,  and  re- 
veahng  for  their  good  His  holy  law.^  The  purple,  as 
will  occur  to  every  one,  is  everywhere  recognised  as  the 
colour  of  royalty,  and  therefore  symbolised  the  kingly 
exaltation  and  majesty  of  God,  as  the  Ruler  of  heaven 
and  earth.  The  scarlet  reminds  us  at  once  of  the 
colour  of  blood,  which  stands  in  the  very  foreground  of 
the  Mosaic  symbolism  as  the  symbol  of  life,  and  thus 


^  See,  e.g.,  Exod.  xxiv.  10 ;  Ezek.  i.  26. 

13 


194  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

points  us  to  the  conception  of  God,  as  the  essentially 
Living  One,  who  is  Himself  the  sole  primal  source  of  all 
life,  whether  physical  or  spiritual,  in  the  creature.  No 
one  can  mistake,  again,  the  symbolic  meaning  of  the 
white,  which,  not  only  in  the  Scripture,  but  among  all 
nations,  has  ever  been  the  symbol  of  purity  and  holiness, 
and  thus  represented  the  high  priest  as  the  minister  of 
God,  as  the  Most  Holy  One.  By  this  investiture,  there- 
fore, Aaron  was  symbolically  constituted  the  minister 
of  the  tabernacle,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  God,  on  the 
other ;  and,  in  particular,  of  God  as  the  God  of  revela- 
tion, in  covenant  with  Israel ;  of  God  as  the  Most  High, 
the  King  of  Israel ;  of  God  as  the  God  of  life,  the 
Giver  of  life  in  the  redemption  of  Israel;  and,  finally,  of 
God  as  the  Most  Holy,  the  God  "  who  is  light,"  and 
"  with  whom  is  no  darkness  at  all." 

The  *^  robe  of  the  ephod  "  was  woven  in  one  piece, 
and  all  of  blue.  In  that  it  was  thus  without  seam,  was 
symbolised  the  wholeness  and  absolute  integrity  neces- 
sary to  him  who  should  bear  the  high  priestly  office. 
In  that  it  was  made  all  of  blue,  the  colour  which  sym- 
bolised the  God  of  heaven  as  manifesting  Himself  to 
Israel  in  condescending  love,  in  the  holy  law  and  cove- 
nant, this  robe  of  the  ephod  specially  marked  the  high 
priest  as  the  minister  of  Jehovah  and  of  His  revealed 
law. 

The  ephod,  which  depended  from  the  shoulders  before 
and  behind,  according  to  the  usage  of  Scripture,  was 
the  garment  specially  significant  of  rule  and  authority ; 
a  thought  which  reached  full  expression  in  the  breast- 
plate which  was  fastened  to  it,  which  contained  the 
Urim  and  Thummim,  by  which  God's  will  was  made 
known  to  Israel  in  times  of  perplexity,  and  was  called 
"the  breast-plate  of  judgment." 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  195 

The  ornamentation  of  these  garments  had  also  a 
symbolic  meaning,  though  it  may  not  be  in  each  instance 
equally  clear.  In  that  the  high  priest,  as  thus  robed, 
bore  upon  the  ephod  and  the  breast-plate  of  judgment, 
graven  on  precious  stones,  the  names  of  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel,  he  was  marked  as  one  who  in  all  his 
high-priestly  work  before  and  with  God,  presented  and 
represented  Israel.  In  that  the  names  were  engraven 
upon  precious  stones  was  signified  the  exceeding  pre- 
ciousness  of  Israel  in  God's  sight,  as  His  ''  peculiar 
treasure."  In  that,  again,  they  were  worn  upon  his 
shoulders,  Aaron  was  represented  to  Israel  as  uphold- 
ing and  bearing  them  before  God  in  the  strength  of  his 
office ;  in  that  he  wore  their  names  upon  his  breast,  he 
was  represented  as  also  bearing  them  upon  his  heart  in 
love  and  affection. 

The  symbolic  meaning  01  the  pomegranates  and 
golden  bells,  which  formed  the  border  of  the  robe  of  the 
ephod,  is  not  quite  so  clear.  But  we  may  probably 
find  a  hint  as  to  their  significance  in  the  Divine  direc- 
tion as  to  the  border  of  blue  which  every  Israelite  was 
to  wear  upon  the  bottom  of  his  garment  (Numb.  xv.  39). 
The  purpose  of  this  is  said  to  be  that  it  might  be  for 
a  continual  reminder  of  the  law  :  "  It  shall  be  unto  you 
for  a  fringe,  that  ye  may  look  upon  it,  and  remember 
all  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  and  do  them."  If 
then  this  border  in  the  garment  of  each  individual 
member  of  the  priestly  nation  was  designed  sym- 
bolically to  mark  them  as  the  keepers  of  the  law  of 
the  God  of  heaven,  we  may  safely  infer  an  analo- 
gous meaning  in  the  similar  border  to  the  official 
garment  of  the  high  priest.  And  if  so,  then  we  shall 
perhaps  not  be  far  out  of  the  way  if  in  this  case  we 
follow  Jewish  tradition  in  regarding  the  pomegranate, 


196  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


a  fruit  distinguished  by  being  filled  to  the  full  with 
seeds,  as  the  symbol,  par  excellence,  of  the  law  of  com- 
mandments, the  words  of  the  living  God,  as  ^*  incorrup- 
tible seed,"  endowed  by  Him  with  vital  energy  and 
power.^ 

As  for  the  bells,  we  naturally  think  at  once  of  the 
common  use  of  the  bell  to  give  a  signal,  and  announce 
what  one  may  be  concerned  to  know.  So  we  read  of 
these  golden  bells  (Exod.  xxviii.  35),  ''  the  sound  thereof 
shall  be  heard  when  he  goeth  in  unto  the  holy  place 
before  the  Lord  .  .  .   that  he  die  not." 

These  golden  bells  in  the  border  of  his  garment, 
between  each  pair  of  pomegranates,  thus  announced 
him  as  officially  appearing  before  God  as  the  fulfiller 
of  the  law  of  commandments,  and  as,  for  this  reason, 
acceptable  to  God  in  the  execution  of  his  high-priestly 
functions. 

As  to  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  "  Light  and  Perfec- 
tion," v/hich  were  apparently  placed  within  the  fold  of 
the  breast-plate  of  judgment,  as  the  tables  of  the  law 
within  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  there  has  been  in  all 
ages  much  debate ;  but  what  they  were  cannot  be  said 
to  have  been  certainly  determined.  Most  probable 
appears  the  opinion  that  they  were  two  sacred  lots, 
which  on  solemn  occasions  were  used  by  the  high 
priest  for  determining  the  will  of  God.  So  much,  in 
any  case,  is  clear  from  the  Scriptures,  that  in  some  way 
through  them  the  will  of  God  as  the  King  of  Israel 
was  made  known  to  the  high  priest,  for  the  direction 
of  the  nation  in  doubtful  matters.     Most  fitly,  therefore, 

'  Thus  e.g.,  in  Cant.  iv.  13,  where  the  Revised  Version  reads,  "  Thy 
shoots  are  an  orchard  of  pomegranates,"  the  Jewish  paraphrast  in  the 
Chaldee  Targum  renders,  "Thy  young  men  are  filled  with  the  com- 
mandments (of  God)  like  unto  pomegranates  {sc.  with  their  seeds)." 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  197 

they  were  placed  within  the  breast-plate  of  judgment, 
which,  indeed,  may  have  received  this  name  from  this 
circumstance.  The  high  priest,  therefore,  as  the  bearer 
of  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  was  set  forth,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  meaning  of  these  words,  as  one  who 
in  virtue  of  his  office  received  perfect  enlightenment 
from  God  as  to  His  will,  in  all  that  concerned  Israel's 
action. 

The  plate  of  graven  gold,  called  the  *'  holy  crown," 
was  bound  by  Moses  with  a  lace  of  blue  upon  the 
mitre  of  Aaron  in  front.  The  precious  metal  here,  as 
elsewhere  in  the  official  garments  of  the  high  priest, 
and  in  the  tabernacle,  was  symbolic  of  the  boundless 
riches  of  the  glory  of  the  God  of  Israel,  whose  minister 
the  high  priest  was.  The  special  significance,  how- 
ever, of  this  holy  crown,  is  found  in  the  words  which 
appeared  upon  it,  "  Holiness  to  Jehovah."  This  was 
a  continual  visible  mark  and  reminder  of  the  fact  that 
the  high  priest,  in  all  that  he  was,  and  in  all  that  he 
did,  was  a  person  in  the  highest  possible  sense  conse- 
crated to  Jehovah,  the  heavenly  King  of  Israel,  whose 
livery  he  wore.  And  in  that  this  golden  plate  with 
this  inscription  is  called  his  "  crown,"  it  is  further  sug- 
gested that  in  this  last-named  fact  is  found  the  crown- 
ing glory  and  dignity  of  the  high  priest's  office.  He  is 
the  minister  of  the  God  of  Israel,  Jehovah,  whose  own 
supreme  glory  is  just  this,  that  He  is  holy.  In  the 
directions  given  for  this  crown  in  Exod.  xxviii.  36-38 
it  is  said  that  in  virtue  of  his  wearing  this,  or,  rather, 
in  virtue  of  the  fact  thus  set  forth,  "  Aaron  shall  bear 
the  iniquity  of  the  holy  things  which  the  children  of 
Israel  shall  hallow  in  all  their  holy  gifts ;  and  it  shall 
always  be  upon  his  forehead,  that  they  may  be  accepted 
before  the  Lord."     That  is,  even  Israel's  consecrated 


198  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

things,  their  holiest  gifts,  are  yet  defiled  by  the  ever 
abiding  sinfulness  of  those  who  offer  them ;  but  they 
are  nevertheless  graciously  accepted,  as  being  offered  by 
Aaron,  himself  "  holy  to  the  Lord." 

Such  then  appears  to  have  been  the  symbolic  mean- 
ing of  these  "  garments  for  glory  and  for  beauty,"  with 
which  Moses  now  robed  Aaron,  in  token  of  his  investi- 
ture with  the  manifold  dignities  of  the  exalted  office  to 
which  God  had  called  him.  But  we  must  not  forget 
that  we  are  not,  in  all  this,  deahng  merely  with  matters 
of  antiquarian  or  archaeological  interest.  Nothing  is 
plainer  than  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  that 
Aaron,  as  the  high  priest,  not  by  accident,  but  by 
Divine  intention,  prefigured  Christ.  In  all  the  direc- 
tions given  concerning  his  investiture  with  his  office, 
and  the  work  which,  as  high  priest,  he  had  to  do,  the 
Holy  Ghost  intended  to  prefigure,  directly  or  indirectly, 
something  concerning  the  person,  office,  and  work  of 
Jesus  Christ,  as  our  heavenly  High  Priest,  the  Fulfiller 
of  all  these  types.  As  Aaron  appears  in  his  fourfold 
high-priestly  garments  of  four  colours,  which  represented 
him  as  the  minister,  on  the  one  hand,  of  the  tabernacle, 
and,  on  the  other,  of  the  God  of  Israel,  the  Inhabitant 
of  the  tabernacle,  so  are  we  reminded  how  Christ  is 
appointed  as  the  **  Minister  of  the  greater  and  more 
perfect  tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands  "  (Heb.  ix.  ii), 
the  earth,  the  heaven,  and  the  heaven  of  heavens,  to 
reconcile,  by  the  offering  of  His  blood,  "  both  the  things 
which  are  on  earth  and  those  which  are  in  the  heavens  " 
(Col.  i.  20).  We  look  upon  the  blue  robe  of  the  ephod, 
and  remember  how  Christ  is  made  a  minister  of  ^'  a 
better  covenant,  enacted  upon  better  promises  "  (Heb. 
viii.  6),  representing,  as  that  old  covenant  did  not,  the 
fulness  of  the  revelation  of  God's  condescending  love 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  199 

and  saving  mercy.  So  also  the  inwoven  scarlet  reminds 
us  how  Christ,  again,  as  the  great  High  Priest,  is  the 
minister  of  the  God  of  life,  and  is  also  Himself  life  and 
the  Giver  of  life  to  all  His  people.  We  look  upon  the 
high  priest's  purple  and  gold,  and  are  reminded  again 
that  Christ,  the  High  Priest,  is  also  invested  with  regal 
power  and  dominion,  all  authority  being  given  unto 
Him  in  heaven  and  on  earth  (Matt,  xxviii.  18). 

Again,  we  look  on  the  ephod  of  fine  linen,  inwoven 
with  blue,  and  scarlet,  and  purple,  and  gold,  with  its 
girdle,  symbolising  service,  and  its  pendant  breast-plate 
of  judgment,  and  are  reminded  how  Christ  in  all  the 
relations  thus  pertaining  to  Him  as  High  Priest,  is  the 
Ruler  and  the  Judge  of  His  people,  who,  as  the  bearer 
of  the  true  Urim  and  Thummim,  is  not  only  Priest,  and 
King,  and  Judge,  but  also,  and  in  order  to  the  salvation 
of  His  people,  their  Prophet,  continually  revealing 
unto  those  who  seek  Him,  the  will  of  God  for  their 
direction  and  guidance  in  every  emergency  of  life.  The 
girdle,  the  symbol  of  service,  brings  to  mind,  again,  how 
in  all  this  He  is  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  serving  the 
Father  in  saving  us. 

The  symbolism  of  the  pomegranates  and  the  golden 
bells  reminds  us,  for  the  strengthening  of  our  faith, 
how  our  exalted  High  Priest,  who  appears  before  God 
in  our  behatf  in  the  Holiest,  appears  there  as  the  great 
Preserver  and  Fulfiller  of  the  Divine  law,  supremely 
qualified,  no  less  by  His  supreme  merit  than  by  Divine 
appointment,  to  urge  our  needs  with  prevalence  before 
God,  His  very  presence  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary  vocal 
with  sweet  music.  Did  Aaron  bear  the  names  of  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel  on  his  shoulders  and  on  his 
breast  before  God  continually  ?  Even  so  does  his 
great  Antitype  bear  continually  all  His  people  before 


200  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

God,  as  He  executes  His  high-priestly  office  ;  and  this, 
too,  not  merely  in  a  vague  and  general  way,  but  tribe 
by  tribe,  community  by  community,  each  with  its  pecu- 
liar case  and  special  need  ;  nay,  we  may  say  even 
more ;  each  individual,  as  such,  is  thus  borne  con- 
tinually on  the  shoulders  and  the  breast  of  the  heavenly 
Priest ;  on  His  shoulders  He  bears  them,  to  support 
them  by  His  power ;  on  His  heart,  in  tenderest  love  and 
sympathy.  And  so  often  as  we  are  distressed  and 
discouraged  by  the  consciousness  of  defilement  still 
pertaining  even  to  the  holiest  of  our  holy  things,  con- 
secration ever  imperfect  at  the  best,  we  may  bethink 
ourselves  of  the  golden  crown  which  Aaron  wore,  and 
its  inscription,  and  remember  how  the  Lord  Jesus  is  in 
fullest  reality  "  holy  to  the  Lord ; "  so  that  we  may  take 
heart  of  grace  as,  with  full  reason  and  right,  we  apply 
to  Him  what  is  said  of  this  crown  of  holiness  on  Aaron's 
brow  :  "  The  crown  of  holiness  is  ever  on  His  forehead, 
and  He  shall  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  holy  things  which 
we  shall  hallow  in  all  our  holy  gifts ;  it  is  always  on 
His  forehead,  that  our  works  may  be  accepted  before  the 
Lord."  And  so  we  are  taught  by  this  symbolism  ever 
to  look  away  from  all  conscious  defilement  and  sin  to 
the  infinite  holiness  of  the  person  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as 
He  continually  appears  before  God  as  High  Priest  in 
our  behalf,  the  all-sufficient  Surety  for  the  acceptance 
of  our  persons  and  of  our  imperfect  works,  for  His 
own  sake. 

The  investiture,  as  also  the  anointing,  of  the  sons 
of  Aaron,  followed  the  robing  and  anointing  of  Aaron. 
We  read  (ver.  13)  :  ''  Moses  brought  Aaron's  sons, 
and  clothed  them  with  coats,  and  girded  them  with 
girdles,  and  bound  head-tires  upon  them ;  as  the  Lord 
commanded  Moses." 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  201 


To  the  three  articles  of  their  attire  here  mentioned, 
must  be  added  the  *'  linen  breeches  "  (Exod.  xxviii.  42, 
43);  so  that  they  also,  in  the  several  parts  of  their 
official  vestments,  bore  the  number  four,  the  signature 
of  the  creaturely,  as  represented  in  the  tabernacle. 
All  was  of  pure  white  linen,  signifying  the  holiness  and 
righteousness  of  those  who  should  act  as  priests 
before  God.  So  once  and  again  in  the  Apocalypse, 
the  same  symbol  is  used  to  denote  the  spotless  holiness 
and  righteousness  of  the  blood-bought  saints,  who  are 
made  *'  a  kingdom  and  priests "  unto  God ;  as,  for 
instance,  it  is  said  of  that  same  holy  body,  symbolised 
as  the  bride  of  the  Lamb,  that  "  it  was  given  unto  her 
that  she  should  array  herself  in  fine  linen,  bright  and 
pure  :  for  the  fine  linen  is  the  righteous  acts  of  the 
saints  "  (Rev.  xix.  8). 

The  Anointing. 

viii.  10-12. 

"And  Moses  took  the  anointing  oil,  and  anointed  the  tabernacle 
and  all  that  was  therein,  and  sanctified  them.  And  he  sprinkled 
thereof  upon  the  altar  seven  times,  and  anointed  the  altar  and  all 
its  vessels,  and  the  laver  and  its  base,  to  sanctify  them.  And  he 
poured  of  the  anointed  oil  upon  Aaron's  head,  and  anointed  him,  to 
sanctify  him." 

Next  in  order  came  the  anointing,  first  of  the 
tabernacle  and  all  that  pertained  to  its  service,  and 
then  the  anointing  of  Aaron. 

The  anointing  oil  was  made  (Exod.  xxx.  22-33)  with 
a  perfume  of  choice  spices,  their  number,  four,  the 
sacred  number  so  constantly  recurring  in  the  tabernacle. 
To  make  or  use  this  oil,  except  for  the  sacred  purposes 
of  the  sanctuary,  was  forbidden  under  penalty  of  being 
cut   off  from   the  holy   people.     The  purpose   of  the 


202  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

anointing  of  the  tabernacle  and  all  within  it,  is  declared 
to  be  its  consecration  thereby  to  the  service  of  Jehovah. 
The  altar,  as  a  place  of  special  sanctity,  the  place 
where  God  had  covenanted  to  meet  with  Israel,  was 
anointed  seven  times.  For  the  number  seven,  com- 
pounded of  three,  the  signet  number  of  the  Godhead, 
and  four,  the  constant  symbol  of  the  creaturely,  is 
thus  by  eminence  the  sacred  number,  the  number,  in 
particular,  which  is  the  sign  and  reminder  of  the 
covenant  of  redemption  ;  and  so  here  it  is  with  special 
meaning  that  the  altar,  as  being  the  place  where  God 
had  specially  covenanted  to  meet  with  Israel  as 
reconciled  through  the  blood  of  atonement,  should 
receive  a  sevenfold  anointing. 

After  this,  the  anointing  oil  was  poured  on  the  head 
of  Aaron,  to  sanctify  him. 

As  to  the  meaning  of  this  part  of  the  symbolic 
service,  there  is  little  room  for  doubt.  The  '^anoint- 
ing "  is  said  to  have  been  "  to  sanctify  "  or  set  apart  to 
the  service  of  Jehovah  him  that  was  anointed.  And, 
inasmuch  as  oil,  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  is  the  constant 
symbol  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  taught  hereby  that  con- 
secration is  secured  only  through  the  anointing  with  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

The  direct  typical  reference  of  this  part  of  the 
ceremonial  to  Christ,  will  not  be  denied  by  any  one  for 
whom  the  Scripture  any  longer  has  authority.  For 
Christ  Himself  quoted  the  words  we  find  in  Isa.  Ixi.  I, 
as  fulfilled  in  Himself:  ''The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God 
is  upon  Me,  because  the  Lord  God  hath  anointed  Me." 
And  the  Apostle  Peter  afterward  taught  (Acts  x.  38) 
that  God  had  "anointed  Jesus  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  power  ;  "  while  the  most  common  title  of  our 
Lord,  as  "  the  Messiah  "  or  "  Christ,"  as  we  all  know, 


viii.i-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  203 

though  often  forgetful  of  its  meaning,  simply  means 
*'  the  Anointed  One."  So  every  time  we  use  the  word, 
we  unconsciously  testify  to  the  fulfilment  of  this  type 
of  the  anointing  of  Aaron  as  priest,  as,  afterward,  of 
the  anointing  of  David  as  king,  in  Him.  And  as  the 
anointing  of  Aaron  took  place  in  the  sight  of  all  Israel, 
assembled  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting,  so  in 
the  fulness  of  time  was  Jesus,  in  the  sight  of  all  the 
multitude  that  waited  on  the  baptism  of  John,  after 
having  been  washed  with  water, ''  to  fulfil  all  righteous- 
ness," anointed  from  heaven,  as  *'  the  Holy  Ghost 
descended  in  bodily  form,  as  a  dove,"  and  abode 
upon  him  (Luke  iii.  22).  And  while,  according  to 
Jewish  tradition,  the  anointing  oil  was  applied  to  the 
ordinary  priests  only  in  small  quantity  and  by  the 
finger,  on  the  head  of  Aaron  it  was  ^*  poured ;  "  in 
which  word,  as  suggested  in  Psalm  cxxxiii.  2,  we  are 
to  understand  a  reference  to  the  great  copiousness 
with  which  it  was  used.  In  which,  again,  the  type 
exactly  corresponds  to  the  Antitype.  For  while  it  is 
true  of  all  believers  that  they  **  have  an  anointing  from 
the  Holy  One"  (i  John  ii.  20),  even  as  their  Lord, 
yet  of  Him  alone  is  it  true  that  unto  Him  the  Spirit 
*^  was  not  given  by  measure  "  (John  iii.  34).  And  by 
this  Divine  anointing  with  the  Holy  Spirit  without 
limit,  was  Jesus  sanctified  and  qualified  for  the  office 
of  High  Priest  for  all  His  people. 

The  anointing  of  the  tabernacle  with  the  same  holy 
oil  was  according  to  a  custom  long  before  prevalent, 
and  however  it  may  seem  strange  to  any  of  us  now, 
will  not  have  seemed  strange  to  Israel.  We  read, 
for  instance  (Gen.  xxviii.  18),  of  the  anointing  of  the 
stone  at  Bethel  by  Jacob,  by  which  he  thus  consecrated 
it  to  be  a  stone  of  remembrance  of  the  revelation  of 


204  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

God  to  him  in  that  place.  So  by  this  anointing,  the 
tabernacle,  with  all  that  it  contained,  was  *'  sanctified  ;  " 
that  is,  consecrated  that  so  the  use  of  these  might  be 
made,  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  a  means 
of  grace  and  blessing  to  Israel.  And  it  was  thus 
anointed,  and  for  this  purpose,  as  being  a  ^'  copy  and 
pattern  of  the  heavenly  things."  By  the  ceremony 
is  signified  to  us,  that  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
through  the  high-priesthood  of  our  Lord,  the  whole 
universe  and  all  that  is  in  it  has  been  consecrated 
and  endowed  by  God  with  virtue,  to  become  a  means 
of  grace  and  blessing  to  all  believers,  by  His  grace  and 
might  who  works  "in  all  things  and  through  all 
things  "  to  this  end. 

The  Consecration  Sacrifices. 

viii.  14-32. 

"And  he  brought  the  bullock  of  the  sin  offering:  and  Aaron  and  his 
sons  laid  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  bullock  of  the  sin  offering. 
And  he  slew  it ;  and  Moses  took  the  blood,  and  put  it  upon  the  horns 
of  the  altar  round  about  with  his  finger,  and  purified  the  altar,  and 
poured  out  the  blood  at  the  base  of  the  altar,  and  sanctified  it,  to  make 
atonement  for  it.  And  he  took  all  the  fat  that  was  upon  the  inwards, 
and  the  caul  of  the  liver,  and  the  two  kidneys,  and  their  fat,  and  Moses 
burned  it  upon  the  altar.  But  the  bullock,  and  its  skin,  and  its  flesh, 
and  its  dung,  he  burnt  with  fire  without  the  camp ;  as  the  Lord  com- 
manded Moses.  And  he  presented  the  ram  of  the  burnt  offering :  and 
Aaron  and  his  sons  laid  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  ram.  And 
he  killed  it :  and  Moses  sprinkled  the  blood  upon  the  altar  round  about. 
And  he  cut  the  ram  into  its  pieces ;  and  Moses  burnt  the  head,  and  the 
pieces,  and  the  fat.  And  he  washed  the  inwards  and  the  legs  with 
water  ;  and  Moses  burnt  the  whole  ram  upon  the  altar  :  it  was  a  burnt 
offering  for  a  sweet  savour :  it  was  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the 
Lord ;  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses.  And  he  presented  the  other 
ram,  the  ram  of  consecration  :  and  Aaron  and  his  sons  laid  their  hands 
upon  the  head  of  the  ram.  And  he  slew  it ;  and  Moses  took  of  the 
blood  thereof,  and  put  it  upon  the  tip  of  Aaron's  right  ear,  and  upon  the 
thumb  of  his  right  hand,   and  upon  the  great  toe  of  his  right  foot. 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  205 

And  he  brought  Aaron's  sons,  and  Moses  put  of  the  blood  upon  the 
tip  of  their  right  ear,  and  upon  the  thumb  of  their  right  hand,  and 
upon  the  great  toe  of  their  right  foot :  and  Moses  sprinkled  the  blood 
upon  the  altar  round  about.  And  he  took  the  fat,  and  the  fat  tail, 
and  all  the  fat  that  was  upon  the  inwards,  and  the  caul  of  the  liver, 
and  the  two  kidneys  and  their  fat,  and  the  right  thigh :  and  out  of  the 
basket  of  unleavened  bread,  that  was  before  the  Lord,  he  took  one 
unleavened  cake,  and  one  cake  of  oiled  bread,  and  one  wafer,  and 
placed  them  on  the  fat,  and  upon  the  right  thigh :  and  he  put  the 
whole  upon  the  hands  of  Aaron,  and  upon  the  hands  of  his  sons, 
and  waved  them  for  a  wave  offering  before  the  Lord.  And  Moses 
took  them  from  off  their  hands,  and  burnt  them  on  the  altar  upon 
the  burnt  offering  :  they  were  a  consecration  for  a  sweet  savour  :  it 
was  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord.  And  Moses  took  the 
breast  and  waved  it  for  a  wave  offering  before  the  Lord :  it  was 
Moses'  portion  of  the  ram  of  consecration  ;  as  the  Lord  commanded 
Moses.  And  Moses  took  of  the  anointing  oil,  and  of  the  blood  which 
was  upon  the  altar,  and  sprinkled  it  upon  Aaron,  upon  his  garments, 
and  upon  his  sons,  and  upon  his  sons'  garments  with  him  ;  and  sancti- 
fied Aaron,  his  garments,  and  his  sons,  and  his  sons'  garments  with 
him.  And  Moses  said  unto  Aaron  and  to  his  sons.  Boil  the  flesh  at  the 
door  of  the  tent  of  meeting  :  and  there  eat  it  and  the  bread  that  is  in 
the  basket  of  consecration,  as  I  commanded,  saying,  Aaron  and  his 
sons  shall  eat  it.  And  that  which  remaineth  of  the  flesh  and  of  the 
bread  shall  ye  burn  with  fire." 

The  last  part  of  the  consecration  ceremonial  was  the 
sacrifices.  Each  of  the  chief  sacrifices  of  the  law  were 
offered  in  order ;  first,  a  sin-offering ;  then,  a  burnt- 
offering  ;  then,  a  peace-offering,  with  some  significant 
variations  from  the  ordinary  ritual,  adapting  it  to  this 
occasion  ;  with  which  was  conjoined,  after  the  usual 
manner,  a  meal-offering.  A  sin-offering  was  offered, 
first  of  all  ;  there  had  been  a  symboHcal  cleansing  with 
water,  but  still  a  sin-offering  is  required.  It  signified, 
what  so  many  in  these  days  seem  to  forget,  that  in 
order  to  our  acceptableness  before  God,  not  only  is 
needed  a  cleansing  of  the  defilement  of  nature  by  the 
regeneration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  also  expiation  for 
the  guilt  of  our  sins.     The  sin-offering  was  first,  for  the 


2o6  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


guilt  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  must  be  thus  typically 
removed,  before  their  burnt-offerings  and  their  meal- 
and  peace-offerings  can  be  accepted. 

The  peculiarities  of  the  offerings  as  rendered  on  this 
occasion  are  easily  explained  from  the  circumstances  of 
their  presentation.  Moses  officiates,  for  this  time  only, 
as  specially  delegated  for  this  occasion,  inasmuch  as 
Aaron  and  his  sons  are  not  yet  fully  inducted  into  their 
office.  The  victim  for  the  sin-offering  is  the  costliest 
ever  employed  :  a  bullock,  as  ordered  for  the  sin  of  the 
anointed  priest.  But  the  blood  is  not  brought  into  the 
Holy  Place,  as  in  the  ritual  for  the  offering  for  the  high 
priest,  because  Aaron  is  not  yet  fully  inducted  into 
his  office.  Nor  do  Aaron  and  his  sons  eat  of  the  flesh 
of  the  sin-offering,  as  ordered  in  the  case  of  other 
sin-offerings  whose  blood  is  not  brought  within  the  Holy 
Place  ;  obviously,  because  of  the  principle  which  rules 
throughout  the  law,  that  he  for  whose  sin  the  sin- 
offering  is  offered,  must  not  himself  eat  of  the  flesh ;  it 
is  therefore  burnt  with  fire,  without  the  camp,  that  it 
may  not  see  corruption. 

By  this  sin-offering,  not  only  Aaron  and  his  son  were 
cleansed,  but  we  read  that  hereby  atonement  was  also 
made  "  for  the  altar ;  "  a  mysterious  type,  reminding  us 
that,  in  some  way  which  we  cannot  as  yet  fully  under- 
stand, sin  has  affected  the  whole  universe  :  in  such  a 
sense,  that  not  only  for  man  himself  who  has  sinned,  is 
propitiation  required,  but,  in  some  sense,  even  for  the 
earth  itself,  with  the  heavens.  That  in  expounding  the 
meaning  of  this  part  of  the  ritual  we  do  not  go  beyond 
the  Scripture  is  plain  from  such  passages  as  Heb.  ix.  23, 
where  it  is  expressly  said  that  even  as  the  tabernacle 
and  the  things  in  it  were  cleansed  with  the  blood  of  the 
bullock,  so  was  necessary  that,  not  merely  man,  but  "the 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  207 

heavenly  things  themselves,"  of  which  the  tabernacle  and 
its  belongings  were  the  ^*  copies/'  should  be  cleansed 
with  better  sacrifices  than  these,"  even  the  offering  of 
Christ's  own  blood.  So  also  we  read  in  Col.  i.  20,  before 
cited,  that  through  Christ,  even  through  the  blood  of 
His  cross,  not  merely  persons,  "  but  all  things,  whether 
things  on  the  earth,  or  things  in  the  heavens,"  should 
be  reconciled  unto  God.  Mysterious  words  these,  no 
doubt ;  but  words  which  teach  us  at  least  so  much 
as  this,  how  profound  and  far-reaching  is  the  mischief 
which  sin  has  wrought,  even  our  sin.  Not  merely  the 
sinning  man  must  be  cleansed  with  blood  before  he  can 
be  made  a  priest  unto  God,  but  even  nature,  "  made 
subject  to  vanity  "  (Rom.  viii.  20),  for  man's  sin,  needs 
the  reconciling  blood  before  redeemed  man  can  exercise 
his  priesthood  unto  God  in  the  heavenly  places.  Evi- 
dently we  have  here  an  estimate  of  the  evil  of  sin  which 
is  incomparably  higher  than  that  which  is  commonly 
current  among  men ;  and  we  shall  do  well  to  conform 
our  estimate  to  that  of  God,  who  required  atonement  to 
be  made  even  for  the  earthen  altar,  to  sanctify  it. 

Reconciliation  being  made  by  the  sin-offering,  next 
in  order  came  the  burnt-offering,  symbolic,  as  we  have 
seen,  of  the  full  consecration  of  the  person  of  the  offerer 
to  God ;  in  this  case  of  the  full  consecration  of  Aaron 
and  his  sons  to  the  service  of  God  in  the  priesthood. 
The  ritual  was  according  to  the  usual  law,  and  requires 
no  further  exposition. 

The  ceremonial  culminated  and  was  completed  in 
the  offering  of  ''  the  ram  of  consecration."  The  expres- 
sion is,  literally,  "  the  ram  of  fillings  ;  "  in  which  phrase 
there  is  a  reference  to  the  peculiar  ceremony  described 
in  w.  27,  28,  in  which  certain  portions  of  the  victim 
and  of  the  meal-offering  were  placed  by  Moses  on  the 


2o8  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS, 


hands  of  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  waved  by  them  for 
a  v/ave-offering  ;  and  afterwards  burnt  wholly  on  the 
altar  upon  the  burnt-offering,  in  token  of  their  full 
devotement  to  the  Lord.  Of  these  it  is  then  added, 
"  they  were  a  consecration  "  (lit.  *'  fillings,"  sc.  of  hands, 
''  were  these  ").  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  and  the 
action  it  denoted  is  determined  by  its  use  in  i  Chron. 
xxix.  5  and  2  Chron.  xxix.  31,  where  it  is  used  of 
the  bringing  of  the  freewill- offerings  by  the  people  for 
Jehovah.  The  ceremonial  in  this  case  therefore  signified 
the  formal  making  over  of  the  sacrifices  into  the  charge 
of  Aaron  and  his  sons,  which  henceforth  they  were  to 
offer ;  that  they  received  them  to  offer  them  to  and  for 
Jehovah,  was  symbolised  by  their  presentation  to  be 
waved  before  Jehovah,  and  further  by  their  being 
burnt  upon  the  altar,  as  a  sacrifice  of  sweet  savour. 

Another  thing  peculiar  to  this  special  consecration 
sacrifice,  was  the  use  which  was  made  of  the  blood, 
which  (ver.  23)  was  put  upon  the  tip  of  Aaron's  right 
ear,  upon  the  thumb  of  his  right  hand,  and  upon  the 
great  toe  of  his  right  foot.  Although  the  solution  is  not 
without  difficulty,  we  shall  probably  not  err  in  regarding 
this  as  distinctively  an  act  of  consecration,  signifying 
that  in  virtue  of  the  sacrificial  blood,  Aaron  and  his 
sons  were  set  apart  to  sacrificial  service.  It  is  applied 
to  the  ear,  to  the  hand,  and  the  foot,  and  to  the  most 
representative  member  in  each  case,  to  signify  the 
consecration  of  the  whole  body  to  the  Lord's  service 
in  the  tabernacle ;  the  ear  is  consecrated  by  the  blood 
to  be  ever  attentive  to  the  word  of  Jehovah,  to  receive 
the  intimations  of  His  will ;  the  hand,  to  be  ever  ready 
to  do  the  Lord's  work ;  and  the  foot,  to  run  on  His 
service. 

Another  peculiarity  of  this  offering  was  in  the  wave- 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  209 

offering  of  Aaron  and  his  sons.     Not  the  breast,  but 
the   thigh,  and   that   together  with   the   fat  (ver.   27) 
was  waved  before  the  Lord  ;  and,  afterward,  not  only 
the   fat  was   burnt  upon  the   altar,  according   to   the 
law,  but  also  the  thigh,  which  in  other  cases  was  the 
portion  of  the  priest,  was  burnt  with  the  fat  and  the 
memorial  of  the  meal-offering.     The  breast  was  after- 
ward waved,  as  the  law  commanded  in  the  case  of  the 
peace-offerings,  but  was  given  to  Moses  as  his  portion. 
The  last  particular  is  easy  to  understand ;    Moses  in 
this  ceremonial  stands  in  the  place  of  the  officiating 
priest,  and  it  is  natural  that  he  should  thus  receive 
from  the  Lord  his  reward  for  his  service.     As  for  the 
thigh,  which,  when  the  peace-offering  was  offered  by 
one  of  the  people,  was  presented  to  the  Lord,  and  then 
given  to  the  officiating  priest  to  be  eaten,  obviously 
the  law  could  not  be  applied  here,  as  the  priests  them- 
selves were  the   bringers  of  the  offering;    hence  the 
only  alternative  was,  as  in  the  case  of  sin-offerings  of 
the  holy  place,  to  burn  the  flesh  with  fire  upon  the  altar, 
as  "  the  food  of  Jehovah."     The  remainder  of  the  flesh 
was  to  be  eaten  by  the  priests  alone  as  the  offerers, 
under  the  regulation  for  the  thank-offering,  except  that 
whatever  remained  until  the  next  day  was  to  be  burnt ; 
a  direction  which  is  explained   by  the    fact   that  the 
sacrifice  was  to  be  repeated  for  seven  days,  so  that 
there  could  be  no  reason  for  keeping  the  flesh  until  the 
third  day.     Last  of  all,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  whereas 
in   the  thank-offerings  of  the  people,  the  offerer  was 
allowed   to   bring    leavened    bread    for   the   sacrificial 
feast,  in  the  feast  of  the  consecration  of  priests  this  was 
not   permitted;    no   doubt   to  emphasise   the  peculiar 
sanctity  of  the  office  to  which  they  were  inducted. 
With  these  modifications,  it  is  plain  that  the  sacrifice 

14 


210  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

of  consecration  was  essentially,  not  a  guilt-offering,  as 
some  have  supposed,  but  a  peace-offering.  It  is  true 
that  a  ram  was  enjoined  as  the  victim  instead  of  a  lamb, 
but  the  correspondence  here  with  the  law  of  the  guilt- 
offering  is  of  no  significance  when  we  observe  that 
rams  were  also  enjoined  or  used  for  peace-offerings  on 
other  occasions  of  exceptional  dignity  and  sanctity,  as 
in  the  peace-offerings  for  the  nation,  mentioned  in  the 
following  chapter,  and  the  peace-offerings  for  the  princes 
of  the  tribes  (Numb.  vii.).  Unlike  the  guilt-offering,  but 
after  the  manner  of  the  other,  the  sacrifice  was  followed 
by  a  sacrificial  feast.  That  participation  in  this  was 
restricted  to  the  priests,  is  sufficiently  explained  by 
the  special  relation  of  this  sacrifice  to  their  own 
consecration. 

Before  the  sacrificial  feast,  however,  one  peculiar 
ceremony  still  remained.  We  read  (ver.  30)  :  ^'  Moses 
took  of  the  anointing  oil,  and  of  the  blood  (of  the 
peace-offering)  which  was  upon  the  altar,  and  sprinkled 
it  upon  Aaron,  upon  his  garments,  and  upon  his  sons, 
and  upon  his  sons'  garments  with  him  ;  and  sanctified 
Aaron,  his  garments,  and  his  sons,  and  his  sons' 
garments  with  him." 

This  sprinkling  signified  that  now,  through  the 
atoning  blood  which  had  been  accepted  before  God 
upon  the  altar,  and  through  the  sanctifying  Spirit  of 
grace,  which  was  symbolised  by  the  anointing,  thus 
inseparably  associated  each  with  the  other,  they  had 
been  brought  into  covenant  relation  with  God  regarding 
the  office  of  the  priesthood.  That  this  their  covenant 
relation  to  God  concerned  them,  not  merely  as  private 
persons,  but  in  their  official  character,  was  intimated 
by  the  sprinkling,  not  only  of  their  persons,  but  of  the 
garments  which  were  the  insignia  of  their  priestly  office. 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  211 

All  this  completed,  now  followed  the  sacrificial  feast. 
We  read  that  Moses  now  ordered  Aaron  and  his  sons 
(ver  31):  '^Boil  the  flesh  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of 
meeting :  and  there  eat  it  and  the  bread  that  is  in  the 
basket  of  consecration,  as  I  commanded,  saying, 
Aaron  and  his  sons  shall  eat  it.  And  that  which  re- 
maineth  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  bread  shall  ye  burn 
with  fire." 

This  sacrificial  feast  most  fitly  marked  the  conclusion 
of  the  rites  of  consecration.  Hereby  it  was  signified, 
first,  that  by  this  solemn  service  they  were  now  brought 
into  a  relation  of  peculiarly  intimate  fellowship  with 
Jehovah,  as  the  ministers  of  His  house,  to  offer  His 
offerings,  and  to  be  fed  at  His  table.  It  was  further 
signified,  that  strength:  for  the  duties  of  this  office 
should  be  supplied  to  them  by  Him  whom  they  were  to 
serve,  in  that  they  were  to  be  fed  of  His  altar.  And, 
finally,  in  that  the  ritual  took  the  specific  form  of  a 
thank-offering,  was  thereby  expressed,  as  was  fitting, 
their  gratitude  to  God  for  the  grace  which  had  chosen 
them  and  set  them  apart  to  so  holy  and  exalted  service. 

These  consecration  services  were  to  be  repeated  for 
seven  consecutive  days,  during  which  time  they  were 
not  to  leave  the  tent  of  meeting, — obviously,  that  by  no 
chance  they  might  contract  any  ceremonial  defilement ; 
so  jealously  must  the  sanctity  of  everything  pertaining 
to  the  service  be  guarded. 

The  commandment  was  (vv.  3  3-3  5 )  :  "  Ye  shall  not 
go  out  from  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting  seven 
days,  until  the  days  of  your  consecration  be  fulfilled  : 
for  he  shall  consecrate  you  seven  days.  As  hath  been 
done  this  day,  so  the  Lord  hath  commanded  to  do, 
to  make  atonement  for  you.  And  at  the  door  of  the 
tent  of  meeting  shall  ye  abide  day  and  night   seven 


212  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

days,  and  keep  the  charge  of  the  Lord,  that  ye  die  not : 
for  so  I  am  commanded." 

By  the  sevenfold  repetition  of  the  consecration 
ceremonies  was  expressed,  in  the  most  emphatic 
manner  known  to  the  Mosaic  symbolism,  the  complete- 
ness of  the  consecration  and  qualification  of  Aaron  and 
his  sons  for  their  office,  and  the  fact  also  that,  in  virtue 
of  this  consecration,  they  had  come  into  a  special 
covenant  relation  with  Jehovah  concerning  the  priestly 
office. 

That  these  consecration  sacrifices  by  which  Aaron 
and  his  sons  were  set  apart  to  the  priesthood,  no  less 
than  the  preceding  part  of  the  ceremonial,  pointed 
forward  to  Christ  and  His  priestly  people  as  the  Anti- 
type, it  will  be  easy  to  see.  As  regards  our  Lord,  in 
Heb.  vii.  2%^  the  sacred  writer  applies  to  the  consecra- 
tion of  our  Lord  as  high  priest  the  very  term  which  the 
Seventy  had  used  long  before  in  this  chapter  of  Leviticus 
to  denote  this  formal  consecration,  and  represents  the 
consecration  of  the  Son  as  the  antitype  of  the  consecra- 
tion of  Aaron  by  the  law  :  ''  the  law  appointeth  men 
high  priests,  having  infirmity  ;  but  the  word  of  the  oath, 
which  was  after  the  law,  appointeth  a  Son,  perfected 
for  evermore." 

An  exception,  indeed,  must  be  made,  as  regards  our 
Lord,  in  the  case  of  the  sin-offering ;  of  whom  it  is  said 
(Heb.  vii.  2^\  that  He  '*needeth  not  .  .  .  like  those 
high  priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifices,  first  for  His  own 
sins."  But  as  regards  the  other  two  sacrifices,  we  can 
see  that  in  their  distinctive  symbolical  import  they 
each  bring  before  us  essential  elements  in  the  consecra- 
tion of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  High  Priest.  In  the 
burnt-offering,  we  see  Him  consecrating  Himself  by 
the  complete  self-surrender  of  Himself  to  the  Father. 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  213 

In  the  offering  of  consecrations,  we  see  Him  in  the 
meal-oflfering  of  unleavened  bread,  offering  in  like 
manner  His  most  holy  works  unto  the  Father ;  and  in 
the  sacrifice  of  the  peace-offering,  wherein  Aaron  ate 
of  the  food  of  God's  house  in  His  presence,  we  see 
Jesus  in  like  manner  as  qualified  for  His  high-priestly 
work  by  His  admission  into  terms  of  the  most  intimate 
fellowship  with  the  Father,  and  sustained  for  His  work 
by  the  strength  given  from  Him,  according  to  His  own 
word  :  "  The  living  Father  hath  sent  Me,  and  I  live 
because  of  the  Father."  In  the  formal  "  filling  of 
the  hands  "  of  Aaron  with  the  sacrificial  material,  in 
token  of  his  endowment  with  the  right  to  offer  sacrifices 
for  sin  for  the  sake  of  sinful  men,  we  are  reminded 
how  our  Lord  refers  to  the  fact  that  He  had  received  in 
like  manner  authority  from  the  Father  to  lay  down  His 
life  for  His  sheep,  emphatically  adding  the  words, 
(John  X.  18),  '^This  commandment  have  I  received  of 
My  Father." 

So  also  was  the  meaning  of  the  collateral  ceremonies 
fully  reahsed  in  Him.  If  Aaron  was  anointed  with  the 
blood  on  ear,  hand,  and  foot,  by  way  of  signifying  that 
the  members  of  his  body  should  be  wholly  devoted 
unto  God  in  priestly  service,  even  so  we  are  reminded 
(Heb.  X.  5,  7),  that  **when  He  cometh  into  the  world 
He  saith,  .  .  .  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldest  not, 
but  a  body  didst  thou  prepare  for  Me ;  .  .  .  Lo,  I  am 
come  to  do  Thy  will,  O  God." 

And  so,  as  Aaron  was  at  the  end  of  the  sacrifice 
sprinkled  with  blood  and  oil,  in  token  that  God  had  now, 
through  the  blood  and  the  oil,  entered  into  a  covenant 
of  priesthood  with  him,  so  we  find  repeated  reference 
to  the  fact  of  such  a  solemn  covenant  and  compact 
between  God  and   the  High  Priest  of  our  profession 


214  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

summed  up  in  the  v/ords  of  prophecy,  *^  The  Lord  hath 
sworn,  and  will  not  repent,  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever 
after  the  order  of  Melchizedek." 

So  did  this  whole  consecration  ceremony,  with  the 
exception  only  of  such  parts  of  it  as  had  reference  to 
the  sin  of  Aaron,  point  forward  to  the  future  investiture 
of  the  Son  of  God  with  the  high-priestly  office,  by  God 
the  Father,  that  He  might  act  therein  for  our  salvation 
in  all  matters  between  us  and  God.  How  can  any  who 
have  eyes  to  see  all  this,  as  opened  out  for  us  in  the 
New  Testament,  fail  with  fullest  joy  and  thankfulness 
to  accept  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  now  passed  into  the 
Holiest,  as  the  High  Priest  of  our  profession  ?  How 
naturally  to  all  such  come  the  words  of  exhortation 
with  which  is  concluded  the  great  argument  upon 
Christ's  high-priesthood  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
(x.  19-23) :  "  Having  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  to 
enter  into  the  holy  place  by  the  blood  of  Jesus ;  .  .  . 
and  having  a  great  priest  over  the  house  of  God ;  let 
us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in  fulness  of  faith, 
having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience, 
and  our  body  washed  with  pure  water :  let  us  hold 
fast  the  confession  of  our  hope  that  it  waver  not ;  for 
He  is  faithful  that  promised." 

But  not  only  was  Aaron  thus  consecrated  to  be  high 
priest  of  the  tabernacle,  but  his  sons  also,  to  be  priests 
under  him  in  the  same  service.  In  this  also  the  type 
holds  good.  For  when  in  Heb.  ii.  Christ  is  brought 
before  us  as  "  the  High  Priest  of  our  confession,"  He 
is  represented  as  saying  (ver.  13),  "Behold,  I  and  the 
children  which  God  hath  given  me  !  "  As  Aaron  had  his 
sons  appointed  to  perform  priestly  functions  under  him 
in  the  earthly  tabernacle,  so  also  his  great  Antitype 
has  "  sons,"  called  to  priestly  office  under  Him  in  the 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.' 21$ 

heavenly  tabernacle.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  in  the 
New  Testament,  not  any  caste  or  class  in  the  Christian 
Church,  but  all  believers,  are  represented  as  '*  a  holy 
priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to 
God  through  Jesus  Christ "  (i  Peter  ii.  5).  To  the 
testimony  of  Peter  corresponds  that  of  John  in  the 
Apocalypse,  where  in  like  manner  believers  are  declared 
to  be  priests  unto  God,  and  represented  as  also  acting  as 
priests  of  God  and  of  Christ  in  the  age  which  is  to  come 
after  *^  the  first  resurrection  "  ^  (Rev.  xx.  6).  Hence 
it  is  plain  that  according  to  the  New  Testament  we 
shall  rightly  regard  the  consecration  of  the  sons  of 
Aaron  as  no  less  typical  than  that  of  Aaron  himself. 
It  is  typical  of  the  consecration  of  all  believers  to  priest- 
hood under  Christ.  It  thus  sets  forth  in  symbol  the 
fact  and  the  manner  of  our  own  consecration  to  minis- 
trations between  lost  men  and  God,  in  the  age  which 
now  is  and  that  which  is  to  come,  in  things  pertaining 
to  sin  and  salvation,  according  to  the  measure  to  each 
one  of  the  gift  of  Christ. 

As  the  consecration  of  Aaron's  sons  began  with  the 
washing  with  pure  water,  so  ours  with  '*  the  washing 
of  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost " 
(Titus  iii.  5).  As  Aaron's  sons,  thus  washed,  were  then 
invested  in  white  linen,  clean  and  pure,  so  for  the 
behever  must  the  word  be  fulfilled  (Isa.  Ixi.  10)  :  "  He 
hath  covered  me  with  the  robe  of  righteousness,  as  a 
bridegroom  decketh  himself"  (marg.  "decketh  as  a 
priest").  That  is,  the  reality  of  our  appointment  of 
God  unto  this  high  dignity  must  be  visibly  attested  unto 

^  Not,  however,  as  many  imagine,  in  behalf  of  those  who  have  in 
this  age  died  in  sin,  but  in  ministrations  to  the  living  nations  in  the 
flesh,  in  the  age  to  come.  We  find  no  ground  of  hope,  in  Holy 
Scripture,  for  the  impenitent  dead. 


2i6  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

men  by  the  righteousness  of  our  lives.  But  whereas 
the  sons  of  Aaron  were  not  clothed  until  first  Aaron 
himself  had  been  clothed  and  anointed,  it  is  signified 
that  the  robing  and  anointing  of  Christ's  people  follows 
and  depends  upon  the  previous  robing  and  anointing 
of  their  Head.  Again,  as  Aaron's  sons  were  also 
anointed  with  the  same  holy  oil  as  was  Aaron,  only  in 
lesser  measure,  so  are  believers  consecrated  to  the 
priestly  office,  like  their  Lord,  by  the  anointing  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  anointing  of  Pentecost  follows  and 
corresponds  to  the  anointing  of  the  High  Priest  at  the 
Jordan  with  one  and  the  same  Spirit.  This  is  another 
necessary  consecration  mark,  on  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  constantly  insist.  As  Jesus  was 
^'anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  (thereby)  with 
power,"  so  He  Himself  said  to  His  disciples  (Acts  i.  8), 
'^  Ye  shall  receive  power,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
come  upon  you ; "  which  promise  being  fulfilled,  Paul 
could  say  (2  Cor.  i.  21),  *' He  that  .  .  .  anointed  us 
is  God;"  and  John  (i  John  ii.  20),  to  all  believers, 
'*  Ye  have  an  anointing  from  the  Holy  One."  And  the 
sacrificial  symbols  are  also  all  fulfilled  in  the  case  of  the 
Lord's  priestly  people.  For  them,  no  less  essential  to 
their  consecration  than  the  washing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  the  removal  of  guilt  by  the  great  Sin-offering  of 
Calvary ;  which  same  offering,  and  true  Lamb  of  God, 
has  also  become  their  burnt-offering,  their  meal-offering, 
and  their  sacrifice  of  consecrations,  as  it  is  written 
(Heb.  X.  10),  that,  by  the  will  of  God,  "we  have  been 
sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ  once  for  all :  "  and  that  He  also  is  become  '*  our 
peace,"  in  that  He  has  expiated  our  sins,  and  also  given 
Himself  to  us  as  our  spiritual  food  ;  that  so  we  may 
derive  daily  strength  for  the  daily  service  in  the  priest's 


viii.  1-36.]  CONSECRATION  OF  AARON  AND  HIS  SONS.  217 

office,  by  feeding  on  the  Lamb  of  God,  the  true  food 
of  the  altar,  given  by  God  for  our  support.  Also,  as 
the  sons  of  Aaron,  hke  Aaron  himself,  v/ere  anointed 
with  the  blood  of  the  peace-offering  of  consecration,  on 
the  ear,  the  hand,  and  the  foot,  so  has  the  blood  of 
the  Lamb,  in  that  it  has  brought  us  into  peace  with 
God,  set  apart  every  true  believer  unto  full  surrender 
of  all  the  members  of  his  body  unto  Him  ;  ears,  that 
they  may  be  quick  to  hear  God's  Word  ;  hands,  that 
they  may  be  quick  to  do  it ;  feet,  that  they  may  only 
run  in  the  way  of  His  commandments.  And  finally, 
whereas  the  solemn  covenant  of  priesthood  into  which 
Aaron  and  his  sons  had  entered  with  God,  was  sealed 
and  ratified  by  the  sprinkling  with  the  oil  and  the  blood, 
so  by  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Spirit  given  to  believers, 
and  the  cleansing  of  the  conscience  by  the  blood,  is  it 
witnessed  and  certified  that  they  are  a  people  called  out 
to  enter  into  covenant  of  priestly  service  with  the  God 
of  all  the  earth  and  the  heavens. 

What  searching  questions  as  to  personal  experience 
all  this  raises  !  What  solemn  thoughts  throng  into  the 
mind  of  every  thoughtful  reader  !  All  this  essential,  if 
we  are  to  be  indeed  members  of  that  royal  priesthood, 
who  shall  reign  as  priests  of  God  and  of  Christ  ?  Have 
we  then  the  marks,  all  of  them  ?  Let  us  not  shrink 
from  the  questions,  but  probe  with  them  the  innermost 
depths  of  our  hearts.  Have  we  had  the  washing  of 
regeneration  ?  If  we  think  that  we  have  had  this, 
then  let  us  also  remember  that  after  the  washing  came 
the  investiture  in  white  linen.  Let  us  ask,  Have  we 
then  put  on  these  white  garments  of  righteousness  ? 
All  that  were  washed,  were  also  clad  in  white ;  these 
were  their  official  robes,  without  which  they  could  not 
act    as   priests   unto   God.     And   there   was   also   an 


2i8  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

anointing.  Have  we,  in  like  manner,  received  the 
anointing  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  endowing  us  with  power 
and  wisdom  for  service?  Then,  the  sin-offering,  the 
burnt-offering,  the  peace-offering  of  consecration, — has 
the  Lamb  of  God  been  used  by  us  in  all  these  various 
ways,  as  our  expiation,  our  consecration,  our  peace, 
and  our  life  ?  And  has  the  blood  which  consecrates 
also  been  applied  to  ear,  hand,  and  foot  ?  Are  we 
consecrated  in  all  the  members  of  our  bodies  ? 

What  questions  these  are !  Truly,  it  is  no  light 
thing  to  be  a  Christian ;  to  be  called  and  consecrated 
to  be,  with  and  under  the  great  High  Priest,  Jesus 
Christ,  a  "  priest  unto  God  "  in  this  life  and  in  that 
of  ^'  the  first  resurrection ; "  to  deal  between  God  and 
men  in  matters  of  salvation.  Have  we  well  under- 
stood what  is  our  "high  caUing,"  and  what  the  con- 
ditions on  which  alone  we  may  exercise  our  ministry  ? 
To  this  may  God  give  us  grace,  for  Jesus'  sake.    Amen. 


CHAPTER    XL 

THE  INAUGURATION  OF  THE    TABERNACLE 
SERVICE. 

Lev.  ix.  1-24. 

AARON  and  his  sons  having  now  been  solemnly 
consecrated  to  the  priestly  office  by  the  cere- 
monies of  seven  days,  their  formal  assumption  of  their 
daily  duties  in  the  tabernacle  was  marked  by  a  special 
service  suited  to  the  august  occasion,  signalised  at  its 
close  by  the  appearance  of  the  glory  of  Jehovah  to 
assembled  Israel,  in  token  of  His  sanction  and  approval 
of  all  that  had  been  done.  It  would  appear  that  the 
daily  burnt-offering  and  meal-offering  had  been  indeed 
offered  before  this,  from  the  time  that  the  tabernacle 
had  been  set  up  ;  in  which  service,  however,  Moses 
had  thus  far  officiated.  But  now  that  Aaron  and  his 
sons  were  consecrated,  it  was  most  fitting  that  a 
service  should  thus  be  ordered  which  should  be  a 
complete  exhibition  of  the  order  of  sacrifice  as  it  had 
now  been  given  by  the  Lord,  and  serve,  for  Aaron  and 
his  sons  in  all  after  time,  as  a  practical  model  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  divinely- given  law  of  sacrifice 
should  be  carried  out. 

The  order  of  the  day  began  with  a  very  impressive 
lesson  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  blood  of  beasts  to  take 
away  sin.     For  seven  consecutive  days  a  bullock  had 


220  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

been  offered  for  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  so  far  as 
served  the  typical  purpose,  their  consecration  was  com- 
plete. But  still  Aaron  and  his  sons  needed  expiating 
blood  ;  for  before  they  could  offer  the  sacrifices  of  the 
day  for  the  people,  they  are  ordered  yet  again  first  of 
all  to  offer  a  sin-offering  for  themselves.  We  read 
(vv.  T,  2):  "  And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  eighth  day,  that 
Moses  called  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  the  elders  of 
Israel ;  and  he  said  unto  Aaron,  Take  thee  a  bull  calf 
for  a  sin  offering,  and  a  ram  for  a  burnt  offering, 
without  blemish,  and  offer  them  before  the  Lord." 

And  then  Aaron  was  commanded  (vv.  3-5):  *'Unto 
the  children  of  Israel  thou  shalt  speak,  saying.  Take  ye 
a  he-goat  for  a  sin  offering;  and  a  calf  and  a  lamb, 
both  of  the  first  year,  without  blemish,  for  a  burnt 
offering ;  and  an  ox  and  a  ram  for  peace  offerings,  to 
sacrifice  before  the  Lord  ;  and  a  meal  offering  mingled 
with  oil :  for  to-day  the  Lord  appeareth  unto  you. 
And  they  brought  that  which  Moses  commanded  before 
the  tent  of  meeting  :  and  all  the  congregation  drew  near 
and  stood  before  the  Lord." 

There  is  little  in  these  directions  requiring  explana- 
tion. Because  of  the  exceptional  importance  of  the 
occasion,  therefore,  as  in  the  feasts  of  the  Lord,  a 
special  sin-offering  was  ordered,  and  a  burnt-offering, 
besides  the  regular  daily  burnt-offering,  meal-offering, 
and  drink-offering;  and,  in  addition,  peculiar  to  this 
occasion,  a  peace-offering  for  the  nation ;  which  last 
was  evidently  intended  to  signify  that  now  on  the 
basis  of  the  sacrificial  worship  and  the  mediation  of  a 
consecrated  priesthood,  Israel  was  privileged  to  enter 
into  fellowship  with  Jehovah,  the  Lord  of  the  tabernacle. 
No  peace-offering  was  ordered  for  Aaron  and  his  sons, 
as,   according  to   the  law  of  the  peace-offering,  they 


IX.]  INAUGURATION  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  SERVICE.  221 

would  themselves  take  part  in  that  of  the  people.  The 
sin-offering  prescribed  for  the  people  was,  not  a  kid, 
as  in  King  James's  version,  but  a  he-goat,  which,  with 
the  exception  of  the  case  of  a  sin  of  commission  as 
described  in  chap.  iv.  13,  14,  appears  to  have  been  the 
usual  victim.  For  the  selection  of  such  a  victim,  no 
reason  appears  more  probable  than  that  assigned  by 
rabbinical  tradition,  namely,  that  it  was  intended  to 
counteract  the  tendency  of  the  people  to  the  worship  of 
shaggy  he-goats,  referred  to  in  chap.  xvii.  7,  ^'  They 
shall  no  more  sacrifice  their  sacrifices  unto  the  he-goats 
(R.V.),  after  whom  they  go  a  whoring." 

The  Order  of  the  Offerings. 
ix.  7-21. 

"  And  Moses  said  unto  Aaron,  Draw  near  unto  the  altar,  and  offer 
thy  sin  offering,  and  thy  burnt  offering,  and  make  atonement  for 
thyself,  and  for  the  people :  and  offer  the  oblation  of  the  people,  and 
make  atonement  for  them ;  as  the  Lord  commanded.  So  Aaron  drew 
near  unto  the  altar,  and  slew  the  calf  of  the  sin  offering,  w^hich  was 
for  himself.  And  the  sons  of  Aaron  presented  the  blood  unto  him : 
and  he  dipped  his  finger  in  the  blood,  and  put  it  upon  the  horns  of 
the  altar,  and  poured  out  the  blood  at  the  base  of  the  altar :  but  the 
fat,  and  the  kidneys,  and  the  caul  from  the  liver  of  the  sin  offering,  he 
burnt  upon  the  altar ;  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses.  And  the  flesh 
and  the  skin  he  burnt  with  fire  without  the  camp.  And  he  slew  the 
burnt  offering ;  and  Aaron's  sons  delivered  unto  him  the  blood,  and 
he  sprinkled  it  upon  the  altar  round  about.  And  they  delivered  the 
burnt  offering  unto  him,  piece  by  piece,  and  the  head  :  and  he  burnt 
them  upon  the  altar.  And  he  washed  the  inwards  and  the  legs, 
and  burnt  them  upon  the  burnt  offering  on  the  altar.  And  he 
presented  the  people's  oblation,  and  took  the  goat  of  the  sin  offering 
which  was  for  the  people,  and  slew  it,  and  offered  it  for  sin,  as 
the  first.  And  he  presented  the  burnt  offering,  and  offered  it  ac- 
cording to  the  ordinance.  And  he  presented  the  meal  offering,  and 
filled  his  hand  therefrom,  and  burnt  it  upon  the  altar,  besides  the 
burnt  offering  of  the  morning.  He  slew  also  the  ox  and  the  ram, 
the  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings,  which   was  for  the  people:   and 


222  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

Aaron's  sons  delivered  unto  him  the  blood,  and  he  sprinkled  it  upon 
the  altar  round  about,  and  the  fat  of  the  ox  ;  and  of  the  ram,  the  fat 
tail,  and  that  which  covered  the  inwards,  and  the  kidneys,  and  the 
caul  of  the  liver :  and  they  put  the  fat  upon  the  breasts,  and  he  burnt 
the  fat  upon  the  altar:  and  the  breast  and  the  right  thigh  Aaron 
waved  for  a  wave  offering  before  the  Lord  ;  as  Moses  commanded." 

Verses  7-21  detail  the  way  in  which  this  command- 
ment of  Moses  was  carried  out  in  the  offerings,  first, 
for  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  then  for  all  the  people  ; 
but,  as  the  peculiarities  of  these  several  offerings  have 
been  already  explained,  they  need  not  here  detain  us. 
That  which  is  new,  and  of  profound  spiritual  and 
typical  meaning,  is  the  order  of  the  sacrifices  as  here 
enjoined  ;  an  order,  which  as  we  learn  from  many 
Scriptures,  represented  what  was  intended  to  be  the 
permanent  and  invariable  law.  The  appointed  order  of 
the  offerings  was  as  follows :  first,  whenever  presented, 
came  the  sin-offering,  as  here  ;  then,  the  burnt-offering, 
with  its  meal-offering;  and  last,  alwa3''s,  the  peace- 
offering,  with  its  characteristic  sacrificial  feast. 

The  significance  of  this  order  will  readily  appear  if 
we  consider  the  distinctive  meaning  of  each  of  these 
offerings.  The  sin-offering  had  for  its  central  thought, 
expiation  of  sin  by  the  shedding  of  blood  ;  the  burnt- 
offering,  the  full  surrender  of  the  person  symbolised  by 
the  victim,  to  God ;  the  meal-offering,  in  like  manner, 
the  consecration  of  the  fruit  of  his  labours  ;  the  peace- 
offering,  sustenance  of  life  from  God's  table,  and  fellow- 
ship in  peace  and  joy  with  God  and  with  one  another. 
And  the  great  lesson  for  us  now  from  this  model 
tabernacle  service  is  this  :  that  this  order  is  determined 
by  a  law  of  the  spiritual  life. 

So  much  as  this,  even  withut  clear  prevision  of  the 
Antitype  of  all  these  sacrifices,  the  thoughtful  Israelite 
might  have  discerned ;  and  even  though  the  truth  thus 


ix.]  INAUGURATION  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  SERVICE.  223 

symbolised  is  placed  before  us  no  more  in  rite  and 
symbol,  yet  it  abides,  and  ever  will  abide,  a  truth.  Man 
everywhere  needs  fellowship  with  God,  and  cannot  rest 
without  it ;  to  attain  such  fellowship  is  the  object  of  all 
religions  which  recognise  the  being  of  a  God  at  all. 
Even  among  the  heathen,  we  are  truly  told,  there  are 
many  who  are  feeling  after  God  "  if  haply  they  may  find 
Him ; "  and,  among  ourselves  in  Christian  lands,  and 
even  in  the  external  fellowship  of  Christian  churches, 
there  are  many  who  with  aching  hearts  are  seeking 
after  an  unrealised  experience  of  peace  and  fellowship 
with  God.  And  yet  God  is  "  not  far  from  any  one  of 
us ; "  and  the  whole  Scripture  represents  Him  as  long- 
ing on  His  part  with  an  incomprehensible  condescen- 
sion and  love  after  fellowship  with  us,  desiring  to 
communicate  to  us  His  fulness ;  and  still  so  many  seek 
and  find  not ! 

We  need  not  go  further  than  this  order  of  the  offer- 
ings, and  the  spiritual  truth  it  signifies  regarding  the 
order  of  grace,  to  discover  the  secret  of  these  spiritual 
failures. 

The  peace-offering,  the  sacrificial  feast  of  fellowship 
with  God,  the  joyful  banqueting  on  the  food  of  His 
table,  was  always,  as  on  this  day,  in  order.  Before 
this  must  ever  come  the  burnt-offering.  The  ritual 
prescribed  that  the  peace-offering  should  be  burnt 
"upon  the  burnt-offering;"  the  presence  of  the  burnt- 
offering  is  thus  presupposed  in  every  acceptable  peace- 
offering.  But  what  if  one  had  ventured  to  ignore  this 
divinely-appointed  order,  and  had  offered  his  peace- 
offering  to  be  burnt  alone;  can  we  imagine  that  it 
would  have  been  accepted  ? 

These  things  are  a  parable,  and  not  a  hard  one.  For 
the   burnt-offering   with   its   meal-offering   symbolised 


224  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

full  consecration  of  the  person  and  the  works  to  the 
Lord.  Remembering  this,  we  see  that  the  order  is  not 
arbitrary.  For,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  full  consecra- 
tion to  God  must  precede  fellowship  with  God  ;  he  who 
would  know  what  it  is  to  have  God  give  Himself  to 
him,  must  first  be  ready  to  give  himself  to  God.  And 
that  God  should  enter  into  loving  fellowship  with  any 
one  who  is  holding  back  from  loving  self-surrender  is 
not  to  be  expected.  This  is  not  merely  an  Old  Testa- 
ment law,  still  less  merely  a  fanciful  deduction  from 
the  Mosaic  symbolism  ;  everywhere  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  the  thought  pressed  upon  us,  no  longer  indeed 
in  symbol,  but  in  plainest  language.  It  is  taught  by 
precept  in  some  of  the  most  familiar  words  of  the  great 
Teacher.  There  is  promise,  for  example,  of  constant 
supply  of  sufficient  food  and  raiment,  fellowship  with 
God  in  temporal  things;  but  only  on  condition  that 
'^  we  seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  His  righteous- 
ness," shall  "  all  these  things  be  added  unto  us  "  (Matt, 
vi.  33).  There  is  a  promise  of  ''  a  hundred-fold  in  this 
Hfe,  and  in  the  world  to  come,  eternal  life  ; "  but  it  is 
prefaced  by  the  condition  of  surrender  of  father,  mother, 
brethren,  sisters,  of  houses  and  lands,  for  the  Lord's 
sake  (Matt.  xix.  29).  Not,  indeed,  that  the  actual 
parting  with  these  is  enjoined  in  every  case ;  but,  cer- 
tainly, it  is  intended  that  we  shall  hold  all  at  the  Lord's 
disposal,  possessing,  but  ^' as  though  we  possessed 
not ; " — this  is  the  least  that  we  can  take  out  of  these 
words. 

Full  consecration  of  the  person  and  the  works,  this 
then  is  the  condition  of  fellowship  with  God ;  and  if 
so  many  lament  the  lack  of  the  latter,  it  is  no  doubt 
because  of  the  lack  of  the  former.  We  often  act 
strangely  in  this  matter  ;  half  unconsciously,  searching. 


ix.]  INAUGURATION  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  SERVICE.  225 

perhaps,  every  corner  of  our  life  but  the  right  one,  from 
looking  into  which  by  the  clear  light  of  God's  Word 
we  instinctively  shrink,  conscience  softly  whispering 
that  just  there  is  something  about  which  we  have  a 
lurking  doubt,  and  which  therefore,  if  we  will  be  fully 
consecrated,  we  must  at  once  give  up,  till  we  are  sure 
that  it  is  right,  and  right  for  us  ;  and  for  that  self-denial, 
that  renunciation  unto  God,  we  are  not  ready.  Is  it 
a  wonder  that,  if  such  be  our  experience,  we  lack  that 
blessed,  joyful  fellowship  with  the  Lord,  of  which  some 
tell  us  ?  Is  it  not  rather  the  chief  wonder  that  we 
should  wonder  at  the  lack,  when  yet  we  are  not  ready 
to  consecrate  all,  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  with  all  our 
works,  unto  the  Lord  ?  Let  us  then  remember  the  law 
of  the  offerings  upon  this  point.  No  Israelite  could 
have  the  blessed  feast  of  the  peace-offering,  except,  first, 
the  burnt-offering  and  the  meal-offering,  symbolising 
full  consecration,  were  smoking  on  the  altar. 

But  this  full  consecration  seems  to  many  so  exceed- 
ing hard, — nay,  we  may  say  more,  to  many  it  is  utterly 
impossible.  A  consecration  of  some  things,  especially 
those  for  which  they  care  little,  this  they  can  hear  of; 
but  a  consecration  of  all,  that  the  whole  may  be  con- 
sumed upon  the  altar  before  and  unto  God,  this  they 
cannot  think  of.  Which  means — can  we  escape  the 
conclusion  ? — that  the  love  of  God  does  not  yet  rule 
supreme.  How  sad  !  and  how  strange  !  But  the  law 
of  the  offerings  will  again  declare  the  secret  of  the 
strange  holding  back  from  full  consecration.  For  it 
was  ordained,  that  wherever  there  was  sin  in  the 
offerer,  unconfessed  and  un forgiven,  before  even  the 
burnt-offering  must  go  the  sin-offering,  expiating  sin 
by  blood  presented  on  the  altar  before  God.  And  here 
we  come  upon  another  law  of  the  spiritual  life  in  all 

15 


226  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

ages.  If  fellowship  with  God  in  peace  and  joy  is  con- 
ditioned by  the  full  consecration  of  person  and  service 
to  Him,  this  consecration,  even  as  a  possibility  for  us, 
is  in  turn  conditioned  by  the  expiation  of  sin  through 
the  great  Sin-offering.  So  long  as  conscience  is  not 
satisfied  that  the  question  of  sin  has  been  settled  in 
grace  and  righteousness  with  God,  so  long  it  is  a  spiri- 
tual impossibility  that  the  soul  should  come  into  that 
experience  of  the  love  of  God,  manifested  through 
atonement,  which  alone  can  lead  to  full  consecration. 

This  truth  is  always  of  vital  importance ;  but  it  is,  if 
possible,  more  important  than  ever  to  insist  upon  it  in 
our  day,  when,  more  and  more,  the  doctrine  of  the  expia- 
tion of  sin  through  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  of  God  is 
denied,  and  that,  forsooth,  under  the  claim  of  superior 
enlightenment.  Men  are  well  pleased  to  hear  of  a 
burnt-offering,  so  long  especially  as  it  is  made  to  signify 
no  more  than  the  self-devotement  of  the  offerer ;  but  for 
a  sin-offering,  much  modern  theology  has  no  place.  So 
soon  as  we  begin  to  speak  of  the  sacrifice  of  our  Lord 
for  sin  in  the  dialect  of  the  ancient  altar — which,  it 
must  never  be  forgotten,  is  that  of  Christ  and  His 
apostles — we  are  told  that  "  it  would  be  better  for  the 
world  if  the  Christian  doctrine  of  sacrifice  could  be 
presented  to  men  apart  from  the  old  Jewish  ideas  and 
terms,  which  only  serve  to  obscure  the  simplicity  that 
is  in  Christ  (!) "  And  so  men,  under  the  pretext  of 
magnifying  the  love  of  God,  and  laying  a  truer  basis 
for  spiritual  life,  in  effect  deny  the  supreme  and  in- 
comparable manifestation  of  that  love,  that  God  made 
"Him  who  knew  no  sin  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf" 
(2  Cor.  V.  21). 

Very  different  is  the  teaching,  not  merely  of  the  law 
of  Moses,  but  of  the  whole  New  Testament ;  which,  in 


ix.]  INAUGURATION  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  SERVICE.  227 

all  it  has  to  say  of  the  Christian  life  as  proceeding  from 
full  self-surrender,  ever  represents  this  full  consecration 
as  inspired  by  the  believing  recognition  and  penitent 
acceptance  of  Christ,  not  merely  as  the  great  Example 
of  perfect  consecration,  but  as  a  sin-offering,  reconciling 
us  first  of  all  by  His  death,  before  He  saves  us  by  His 
life  (Rom.  v.  10).  The  expiation  of  sin  by  the  sin- 
offering,  before  the  consecration  which  burnt-offering 
and  meal-offering  typify, — this  is  the  invariable  order 
in  both  Testaments.  The  Apostle  Paul,  in  his  account 
of  his  own  full  consecration,  is  in  full  accord  with  the 
spiritual  teaching  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  when  he  gives 
this  as  the  order.  He  describes  himself,  and  that  in 
terms  of  no  undue  exaggeration,  as  so  under  the  con- 
straint of  the  love  of  Christ  as  to  seem  to  some  beside 
himself;  and  then  he  goes  on  to  explain  the  secret  of 
this  consecration,  in  which  he  had  placed  himself  and 
all  he  had  upon  God's  altar,  as  a  whole  burnt-sacrifice, 
as  consisting  just  in  this,  that  he  had  first  apprehended 
the  mystery  of  Christ's  death,  as  a  substitution  so  true 
and  real  of  the  sinless  Victim  in  the  place  of  sinful 
men,  that  it  might  be  said  that  "  one  died  for  all, 
therefore  all  died ;  "  whence  he  thus  judged,  "  that  they 
which  live  should  no  longer  live  unto  themselves,  but 
unto  Him  who  for  their  sakes  died  and  rose  again  " 
(2  Cor.  V.  13-15).  To  the  same  effect  is  the  teaching 
of  the  Apostle  John.  For  all  true  consecration  springs 
from  the  thankful  recognition  of  the  love  of  God ;  and, 
according  to  this  Apostle  also,  the  Divine  love  which 
inspires  the  consecration  is  manifest  in  this,  that  ^'  He 
sent  His  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins " 
(i  John  iv.  10).  The  apprehension,  then,  of  the  reality 
of  the  expiation  made  by  the  great  Sin-offering,  and  the 
believing  appropriation  of  its  virtue  to  the  cancelling 


228  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

of  our  guilt,  this  is  the  inseparable  previous  condition 
of  full  consecration  of  person  and  work  unto  the  Lord. 
It  is  so,  because  only  the  apprehension  of  the  need 
of  expiation  by  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  the 
necessary  condition  of  forgiveness,  can  give  us  any 
adequate  measure  of  the  depth  of  our  guilt  and  ruin, 
as  God  sees  it ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  only  when 
we  remember  that  God  spared  not  His  only-begotten 
Son,  but  sent  Him  to  become,  through  death  upon 
the  cross,  a  propitiation  for  our  sins,  can  we  begin 
to  have  such  an  estimate  of  the  love  of  God  and  of 
Christ  His  Son  as  shall  make  full  consecration  easy, 
or  even  possible. 

Let  us  then,  on  no  account,  miss  this  lesson  from  the 
order  of  this  ritual ;  before  the  peace-offering,  the  burnt- 
offering  ;  before  the  burnt-offering,  the  sin-offering.  Or, 
translating  the  symbolism,  perfect  fellowship  with  God 
in  peace  and  joy  and  life,  only  after  consecration ;  and 
the  consecration  only  possible  in  fulness,  and  only 
accepted  of  God,  in  any  case,  when  the  great  Sin- 
offering  has  been  first  believingly  appropriated,  according 
to  God's  ordination,  as  the  propitiation  for  our  sins, 
for  the  cancelling  of  our  guilt. 

But  there  is  yet  more  in  this  order  of  the  offerings. 
For,  as  the  New  Testament  in  every  way  teaches  us, 
the  Antitype  of  every  offering  was  Christ.  As  we  have 
already  seen,  in  the  Sin-offering  we  have  the  type  of 
Christ  as  our  propitiation,  or  expiation  ;  in  the  burnt- 
offering,  of  Christ  as  consecrating  Himself  unto  God  in 
our  behalf;  in  the  meal-offering,  as,  in  like  manner, 
consecrating  all  His  works  in  our  behalf;  in  the  peace- 
offering,  as  imparting  Himself  to  us  as  our  life,  and 
thus  bringing  us  into  fellowship  of  peace  and  love  and 
joy  with  the  Father. 


ix.]  INAUGURATION  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  SERVICE.  229 

Now  this  last  is,  in  fact,  the  ultimate  aim  of  salva- 
tion ;  rather,  indeed,  we  may  say,  it  is  salvation.  For  life 
in  its  fulness  means  the  cancelling  of  death ;  death 
spiritual,  and  bodily  death  also,  in  resurrection  from 
the  dead ;  it  means  also  perfect  fellowship  with  the 
living  God,  and  this,  attained,  is  heaven.  Hence  it 
must  needs  be  that  the  peace-offering  which  represents 
Christ  as  giving  Himself  to  us  as  our  life,  and  intro- 
ducing us  into  this  blessed  state,  comes  last. 

But  before  this,  in  order,  not  of  time,  but  of  grace, 
as  also  of  logic,  must  be  Christ  as  Sin-offering,  and 
Christ  as  Burnt-offering.  And,  first  of  all,  Christ  as 
Sin-offering.  For  God's  way  of  peace  puts  the  cancel- 
ling of  guilt,  the  satisfaction  of  His  holy  law  and  justice, 
and  therewith  the  restoration  of  our  right  relation  to 
Him,  first,  and  in  order  to  a  holy  life  and  fellowship  ; 
while  man  will  ever  put  these  last,  and  regard  the 
latter  as  the  means  to  obtaining  a  right  standing  with 
God.  Hence,  inasmuch  as  Christ,  coming  to  save  us, 
finds  us  under  a  curse,  the  first  thing  in  order  is,  and 
must  be,  the  removal  of  that  curse  of  the  holy  wrath 
of  God,  against  every  one  that  ''  continueth  not  in  all 
things  that  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law,  to  do 
them."  And  so,  first  in  order  in  the  typical  ritual  is 
the  sin-offering  which  represents  Christ  as  made  "  a 
curse  for  us,"  that  He  might  thus  redeem  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law  (Gal.  iii.   13). 

But  this  is  not  a  complete  account  of  the  work  of  our 
Lord  for  us  in  the  days  of  His  flesh.  His  work  indeed 
was  one,  but  the  Scriptures  set  it  forth  in  a  twofold 
aspect.  On  the  one  hand.  He  is  the  Sinless  One  bearing 
the  curse  tor  us ;  but  also,  in  all  His  suffering  for  our 
sins,  He  is  also  manifested  as  the  Righteous  One,  making 
many  righteous  by  His  obedience,  even  an  obedience 


230  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

unto  the  death  of  the  cross  (Rom.  v.  19 ;  Phil.  ii.  8). 
And  if  we  ask  what  was  the  essence  of  this  obedience 
of  our  Lord  for  us,  what  was  it,  indeed,  but  that  which 
is  the  essence  of  all  obedience  to  God,  namely,  full,  un- 
reserved, uninterrupted  consecration  and  self-surrender 
to  the  will  of  the  Father  ?  And  as,  by  His  suffering, 
Christ  endured  the  curse  for  us,  so  by  all  His  obedience 
and  suffering  in  full  submission  to  the  will  of  God,  He 
became  also  **  the  Lord  our  righteousness."  And  this, 
as  repeatedly  remarked,  is  the  central  thought  of  the 
burnt-offering  and  the  meal-offering, — full  consecration 
of  the  person  and  the  work  to  God. 

In  the  sin-offering,  then,  we  see  Christ  as  our 
propitiation ;  in  the  burnt-offering,  we  see  Him  rather 
as  our  righteousness ;  but  the  former  is  presupposed 
in  the  latter;  and  apart  from  this,  that  in  His  death  He 
became  the  expiation  of  our  sins.  His  obedience  could 
have  availed  us  nothing.  But  given  now  Christ  as 
our  propitiation  and  also  our  righteousness,  the  whole 
question  of  the  relation  of  Christ's  people  to  God  in 
law  and  righteousness  is  settled,  and  the  way  is  now 
clear  for  the  communication  of  life  which  the  peace- 
offering  symbolised.  Thus,  as  by  faith  in  Christ  as  the 
Sin-offering,  our  propitiation  and  righteousness,  we  are 
"justified  freely  by  grace,"  "apart  from  the  works  of  the 
law,"  so  now  the  way  is  open,  by  the  appropriation 
of  Christ  as  our  life  in  the  peace-offering,  for  our 
sanctification  and  complete  redemption.  In  a  word,  the 
law  of  the  order  of  the  offerings  teaches,  symbolically 
and  typically,  exactly  what,  in  Rom.  vi.  and  vii.,  the 
Apostle  Paul  teaches  dogmatically^  namely,  that  the 
order  of  grace  is  first  justification,  then  sanctification ; 
but  both  by  the  same  crucified  Christ,  our  propitiation, 
our  righteousness,  and  our  life :  in  whom  we  come  to 


ix.]  INAUGURATION  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  SERVICE.  231 

have   fellowship   in   all   good   and   blessing   with   the 
Father. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  after  the  analogy  of 
this  order  of  the  offerings,  is  the  most  usual  order  of  the 
development  of  Christian  experience.  For  the  awakened 
soul  is  usually  first  of  all  concerned  about  the  question 
of  forgiveness  of  sin  and  acceptance ;  and  hence,  most 
commonly,  faith  first  apprehends  Christ  in  this  aspect, 
as  the  One  who  '^bare  our  sins  in  His  body,"  by  whose 
stripes  we  are  healed ;  and  then,  at  a  later  period 
of  experience,  as  the  One  who  also,  in  lowly  con- 
secration to  the  Father's  will,  obeyed  for  us,  that  we 
might  be  made  righteous  through  His  obedience.  But 
no  one  who  is  truly  justified  by  faith  in  Christ  as 
our  propitiation  and  righteousness,  can  long  rest  with 
this.  He  very  quickly  finds  what  he  had  little  thought 
of  before,  that  the  evil  nature  abides  even  in  the 
justified  and  accepted  believer ;  nay,  more,  that  it  has 
still  a  terrible  strength  to  overcome  him  and  lead  him 
into  sin,  even  often  when  he  would  not.  And  this 
prepares  the  believer,  still  in  accord  with  the  law  of 
the  order  of  grace  here  set  forth,  to  lay  hold  also  on 
Christ  by  faith  as  His  Peace-offering,  by  feeding  on 
whom  we  receive  spiritual  strength,  so  that  He  thus, 
in  a  word,  becomes  our  sanctification  and,  at  last,  full 
redemption. 

The  Double  Benediction. 

ix.  22-24. 

"  And  Aaron  lifted  up  his  hands  toward  the  people,  and  blessed 
them ;  and  he  came  down  from  offering  the  sin  offering,  and  the 
burnt  offering,  and  the  peace  offerings.  And  Moses  and  Aaron  went 
into  the  tent  of  meeting,  and  came  out,  and  blessed  the  people  :  and 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  appeared  unto  all  the  people.     And  there  came 


232  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

forth  fire  from  before  the  Lord,  and  consumed  upon  the  altar  the 
burnt  offering  and  the  fat :  and  when  all  the  people  saw  it,  they 
shouted,  and  fell  on  their  faces." 

The  sacrifices  having  now  been  made,  and  the 
offerings  presented  in  this  divinely-appointed  order,  by 
the  ordained  and  consecrated  priesthood,  two  things 
followed  :  a  double  benediction  was  pronounced  upon 
the  people,  and  Jehovah  manifested  to  them  His  glory. 
We  read  (ver.  22),  "  And  Aaron  lifted  up  his  hands 
toward  the  people,  and  blessed  them ;  and  he  came 
down  from  offering  the  sin  offering,  and  the  burnt 
offering,  and  the  peace  offerings." 

Presumably,  the  form  of  benediction  which  Aaron 
used  was  that  which,  according  to  Numb.  vi.  24-27,  the 
priests  were  commanded  by  the  Lord  to  use  :  "  The 
Lord  bless  thee,  and  keep  thee  :  the  Lord  make  His 
face  to  shine  upon  thee,  and  be  gracious  unto  thee : 
the  Lord  lift  up  His  countenance  upon  thee,  and 
give  thee  peace."  It  was  not  an  empty  form  ;  for  the 
Lord  at  that  time  also  promised  Himself  to  make  this 
blessing  efficient,  saying  thereafter,  "  So  shall  they  put 
My  Name  " — Jehovah,  the  name  of  God  in  covenant, — 
*'  upon  the  children  of  Israel ;  and  I  will  bless  them." 

So  also  the  Lord  Jesus,  just  before  withdrawing  from 
the  bodily  sight  of  His  disciples  after  the  completion 
of  His  great  sacrifice,  '*  lifted  up  His  hands,  and  blessed 
them ; "  and  thereupon  disappeared  from  their  sight, 
ascending  into  heaven.  Even  so  was  it  in  the  typical 
service  of  this  day ;  for  when  Aaron  had  thus  lifted 
up  his  hands  and  blessed  the  people  (ver.  23),  "Moses 
and  Aaron  went  into  the  tent  of  meeting." 

The  work  of  Aaron  in  the  outer  court  had  been 
finished,  and  now  he  disappears  from  Israel's  sight ;  for 
he  must,  in  like  manner,  be  inducted  into  the  priestly 


ix.]  INAUGURATION  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  SERVICE.  233 

work  within  the  Holy  Place.  He  must  there  be  shown 
all  those  things  to  which,  in  his  priestly  ministrations, 
the  blood  must  be  appHed ;  and,  especially,  must  also 
offer  the  sweet  incense  at  the  golden  altar  which  was 
before  the  veil  which  enshrined  the  immediate  presence 
of  Jehovah.  But  this  offering  of  incense,  as  all  have 
agreed,  typifies  the  precious  and  most  effective  inter- 
cession of  the  great  Antitype;  so  that  thus  it  was  shown 
in  a  figure,  how  the  Christ  of  God,  having  finished  His 
sacrificial  work  in  the  sight  of  men,  and  having  ascended 
into  heaven,  should  there  for  a  season  abide,  hidden 
from  human  sight,  making  intercession  for  His  waiting 
people. 

After  an  interval — we  are  not  told  how  long — Moses 
and  Aaron  again  (vv.  23,  24), "  came  out,  and  blessed  the 
people :  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  appeared  unto  all  the 
people.  And  there  came  forth  fire  from  before  the  Lord, 
and  consumed  upon  the  altar  the  burnt  offering  and  the 
fat :  and  when  all  the  people  saw  it,  they  shouted,  and 
fell  on  their  faces." 

This  second  blessing  by  Moses  and  Aaron  conjointly, 
followed  Aaron's  reappearance  to  Israel,  and  marked 
the  completion  of  these  inauguration  services,  the  inter- 
cession within  the  veil,  as  well  as  the  sacrifices.  And 
the  revelation  in  a  visible  way  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
added  what  now  was  alone  required,  the  manifest  attes- 
tation by  the  Lord  of  the  tabernacle  of  His  approval  of 
all  that  had  been  done  in  these  memorable  eight  days. 
This  appearance  of  the  Shekinah  glory  was  followed  by 
a  flash  of  fire  which,  in  token  of  the  Divine  appropria- 
tion of  the  sacrifices,  consumed  in  an  instant  the  burnt- 
offering  on  the  altar  with  the  fat  of  the  sin-offering  and 
the  peace-offering,  which  had  been  laid  upon  it.  We 
cannot  follow  here  the  Jewish  tradition,  which  has  it 


234  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

that  with  this  act  the  sacrificial  fire  which  was  never 
to  go  out  upon  the  altar,  was  originated.  On  the  con- 
trary, as  we  have  seen,  the  offerings  had  before  this 
been  made  by  Moses,  and  even  on  this  day  the  fire  had 
been  kindled  before  (ver.  lo,  et  seq.).  Nor  is  there 
any  necessary  inconsistency  here ;  for  we  have  but  to 
suppose  that  the  burning  of  the  sacrifices  which  had 
been  kindled  by  Aaron  was  not  yet  complete,  when  the 
flash  from  the  cloud  of  glory  in  an  instant  consummated 
the  burning,  teaching  in  a  most  august  and  impressive 
manner  the  symbolic  meaning  of  the  burning  of  the 
sacrifices  on  the  altar,  as  signifying  the  acceptance  and 
appropriation  of  that  which  was  offered,  by  the  Lord 
who  had  commanded  all,  and  thereby  endorsing  all 
that  had  been  done,  as  according  to  His  mind  and  will. 
And  even  so,  according  to  the  sure  Word  of  prophecy, 
our  heavenly  High  Priest  has  yet  in  reserve  for  His 
people  a  second  benediction.  His  first  blessing  upon 
leaving  the  world  was  followed  by  Pentecost ;  the 
second,  on  His  reappearing,  shall  bring  in  resurrection 
and  full  salvation.  And  in  that  day,  when  He  ''shall 
appear  a  second  time,  apart  from  sin,  to  them  that 
wait  for  Him  unto  salvation  "  (Heb.  ix.  28),  therewith 
shall  appear  the  glory  which  on  that  day,  long  ago, 
appeared  to  Israel ;  for  He  "  shall  come  in  the  glory 
of  His  Father,"  and  thus  shall  God,  the  Most  High  and 
the  Most  Holy,  testify  before  the  universe  His  gracious 
acceptance  of  the  service  of  the  true  Aaron  and  His 
"many  sons,"  the  priestly  people  of  God,  through  all 
the  Christian  ages.  Thus,  the  services  and  events  of 
that  day  of  induction,  in  their  order  from  beginning  to 
end,  were  not  only  a  parable  of  the  order  of  grace,  but 
also,  as  it  were,  a  typical  epitome  of  the  whole  work  of 
redemption.     They  are  thus  a  prophecy  that  the  work 


ix.]  INAUGURATION  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  SERVICE.  235 

which  began  when  Christ  made  His  soul  an  offering 
for  sin,  and  to  perfect  which  He  is  now  withdrawn 
from  our  sight  for  a  season,  shall  be  consummated  at 
last  by  His  reappearing  in  glory  for  the  final  blessing 
of  His  waiting  people. 

And  if  we  look  at  other  and  subordinate  aspects  of 
this  inauguration  service,  we  shall  still  find  this  sequel 
of  all,  no  less  richly  suggestive.  Expiation,  righteous- 
ness, fellowship  in  peace  with  God,  shall  bring  with  it 
the  blessing  of  the  Lord,  and  finally  issue  in  the  revela- 
tion of  His  glory  in  the  sight  of  all  who  accept  this 
great  redemption  through  sacrifice.  And  so  also  in  the 
personal  life.  As  the  trustful  acceptance  and  use  of 
the  appointed  Sin-offering  leads  to  the  consecration  of 
the  person  and  the  life,  and  as  by  this  consecration  we 
come  into  conscious  fellowship  with  God  in  joy  and 
peace,  as  we  feed  on  the  flesh  of  the  slain  Lamb,  so, 
as  the  blessed  result,  unto  every  true  believer,  accord- 
ing to  the  measure  of  his  faith,  this  is  followed  by  the 
double  benediction  of  the  Lord ;  one  for  this  life,  and 
a  larger,  for  the  life  which  is  to  come.  The  Lord 
blesses  him,  and  keeps  him  :  the  Lord  makes  His  face  to 
shine  upon  him,  and  is  gracious  unto  him  :  the  Lord 
lifts  up  His  countenance  upon  him,  and  gives  him 
peace,  according  to  that  word  of  the  great  High  Priest: 
"  Peace  I  leave  with  you  ;  My  peace  I  give  unto  you  " 
(John  xiv.  27).  And  then,  after  the  present  peace,  is 
yet  to  follow,  as  the  final  issue  of  the  expiated  sin,  and 
the  consecrated  life,  and  fellowship  in  peace  with  the 
God  of  life  and  love,  the  beholding  of  the  glory  of  the 
Lord ;  according  to  that  high-priestly  prayer  of  our 
Redeemer,  *'  That  which  Thou  hast  given  Me,  I  will 
that,  where  I  am,  they  also  may  be  with  Me  :  that  they 
may  behold  My  glory  "  (John  xvii.  24).  Even  here  some 


236  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS, 

know  a  little  of  this,  and  find  that  expiated  sin  and 
full  consecration  are  followed  here  and  now  by  bright 
glimpses  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord.  But  what  is  now 
seen  thus  in  part  shall  then  be  seen  fully  and  face  to 
face.  Who  would  not  make  sure  of  that  beatific  vision 
of  the  glory  of  the  Lord  ? 


CHAPTER  XII. 

NADABS  AND  ABIHUS  ''STRANGE  FIRE.'' 
Lev.  X.   I -20. 

THE  solemn  and  august  ceremonies  of  the  conse- 
cration of  the  priests  and  the  tabernacle,  and  the 
inauguration  of  the  tabernacle  service,  had  a  sad  and 
terrible  termination.  The  sacrifices  of  the  inauguration 
day  had  been  completed,  the  congregation  had  received 
the  priestly  benediction,  the  glory  of  Jehovah  had  ap- 
peared unto  the  people,  and,  in  token  of  His  acceptance 
of  all  that  had  been  done,  consumed  the  victims  on 
the  altar.  This  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
so  affected  the  people — as  well  it  might — that  when 
they  saw  it,  "they  shouted,  and  fell  on  their  faces." 
It  was,  probably,  under  the  influence  of  the  excitement 
of  this  occasion  that  (vv.  1 ,  2),  **  Nadab  and  Abihu, 
the  sons  of  Aaron,  took  each  of  them  his  censer,  and 
put  fire  therein,  and  laid  incense  thereon,  and  offered 
strange  fire  before  the  Lord,  which  He  had  not  com- 
manded them.  And  there  came  forth  fire  from  before 
the  Lord,  and  devoured  them,  and  they  died  beiore  the 
Lord." 

There  has  been  no  little  speculation  as  to  what  it  was, 
precisely,  which  they  did.  Some  will  have  it,  that  they 
lighted  their  incense,  not  from  the  altar  fire,  but  else- 
where.    As  to  this,  while  it  is  not  easy  to  prove  that  to 


238  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

light  the  incense  at  the  altar  fire  was  an  invariable 
requirement,  yet  it  is  certain  that  this  was  commanded 
for  the  great  day  of  atonement  (xvi.  12) ;  and  also,  that 
when  Moses  offered  incense  in  connection  with  the 
plague  which  broke  out  upon  the  rebellion  of  Korah, 
Dathan,  and  Abiram,  Moses  commanded  him  to  take 
the  fire  for  the  censer  from  off  the  altar  (Numb.  xvi.  46) ; 
so  that,  perhaps  this  is  not  unlikely  to  have  been  one 
element,  at  least,  in  their  offence.  Others,  again,  have 
thought  that  their  sin  lay  in  this,  that  they  offered  their 
incense  at  a  time  not  commanded  in  the  order  of  worship 
which  God  had  just  prescribed  ;  and  this,  too,  may  very 
probably  have  been  another  element  in  their  sin,  for  it 
is  certain  that  the  divinely-appointed  order  of  worship 
for  the  day  had  been  already  completed.  Yet  again, 
others  have  supposed  that  they  rashly  and  without 
Divine  warrant  pressed  within  the  veil,  into  the  imme- 
diate presence  of  the  Shekinah  glory  of  God,  to  offer 
their  incense  there.  For  this,  too,  there  is  evidence,  in 
the  fact  that  the  institution  of  the  great  annual  day  of 
atonement,  and  the  prohibition  of  entrance  within  the 
veil  at  any  other  time,  even  to  the  high  priest  himself, 
is  said  to  have  followed  "  after  the  death  of  the  two 
sons  of  Aaron,  when  they  drew  near  before  the  Lord, 
and  died"  (xvi.  i,  2). 

It  is  perfectly  possible,  and  even  likely,  that  all  these 
elements  were  combined  in  their  offence.  In  any  case, 
the  gravamen  of  their  sin  is  expressed  in  these  words ; 
they  offered  "  fire  which  the  Lord  had  not  commanded 
them  : "  offered  it,  either  in  a  way  not  commanded,  or 
at  a  time  not  commanded,  or  in  a  place  not  commanded ; 
or,  perhaps,  in  each  and  all  of  these  ways,  offered  "  fire 
which  the  Lord  had  not  commanded."  This  was  their 
sin,  and  one  which  brought  instant  and  terrible  judgment. 


X.  1-3.]     NADAB'S  AND  ABIHU'S  "STRANGE  FIRE."      239 

It  is  easy  enough  to  believe  that  yet  they  meant  well 
in  what  they  did.  It  probably  seemed  to  them  the  right 
thing  to  do.  After  such  a  stupendous  display  as  they 
had  just  witnessed,  of  the  flaming  glory  of  Jehovah,  why 
should  they  not,  in  token  of  reverence  and  adoration, 
offer  incense,  even  in  the  most  immediate  presence  of 
Jehovah  ?  And  why  should  such  minor  variations  from 
the  appointed  law,  as  to  manner,  or  time,  or  place, 
matter  very  much,  so  the  motive  was  worship  ?  So  may 
they  probably  have  reasoned,  if  indeed  they  thought 
at  all.  But,  nevertheless,  this  made  no  difference ;  all 
the  same,  *^  fire  came  forth  from  Jehovah,  and  devoured 
them."  They  had  been  but  so  lately  consecrated  !  and 
— as  we  learn  from  ver.  5 — their  priestly  robes  were 
on  them  at  the  time,  in  token  of  their  peculiar  privilege 
of  special  nearness  to  God !  But  this,  too,  made  no 
difference ;  *^  there  came  forth  fire  from  before  the  Lord 
and  devoured  them." 

Their  sin,  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  committed, 
can  never  be  repeated ;  but  as  regards  its  mner  nature 
and  essence,  no  sin  has  been  in  all  ages  more  common. 
For  the  essence  of  their  sin  was  this,  that  it  was  will- 
worship;  worship  in  which  they  consulted  not  the 
revealed  will  of  God  regarding  the  way  in  which  He 
would  be  served,  but  their  own  fancies  and  inclinations. 
The  directions  for  worship  had  been,  as  we  have  seen, 
exceedingly  full  and  explicit ;  but  they  apparently 
imagined  that  the  fragrance  of  their  incense,  and  its 
intrinsic  suitableness  as  a  symbol  of  adoration  and 
prayer,  was  sufficient  to  excuse  neglect  of  strict  obedience 
to  the  revealed  will  of  God  touching  His  own  worship. 
Their  sin  was  not  unlike  that  of  Saul  in  a  later  day, 
who  thought  to  excuse  disobedience  by  the  offering 
of  enormous  sacrifices.     But  he  was  sharply  reminded 


240  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


that  "to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice"  (i  Sam.  xv. 
22) ;  and  the  priesthood  were  in  Hke  manner  on  this 
occasion  very  terribly  taught  that  obedience  is  also 
better  than  incense,  even  the  incense  of  the  sanctuary. 

In  all  ages,  men  have  been  prone  to  commit  this  sin, 
and  in  ours  as  much  as  any.  It  is  true  that  in  the 
present  dispensation  the  Lord  has  left  more  in  His 
worship  than  in  earlier  days  to  the  sanctified  judgment 
of  His  people,  and  has  not  minutely  prescribed 
details  for  our  direction.  It  is  true,  again,  that  there 
is,  and  always  will  be,  room  for  some  difference  of 
judgment  among  good  and  loyal  servants  of  the  Lord, 
as  to  how  far  the  liberty  left  us  extends.  But  we  are 
certainly  all  taught  as  much  as  this,  that  wherever  we 
are  not  clear  that  we  have  a  Divine  warrant  for  what 
we  do  in  the  worship  of  God,  we  need  to  be  exceeding 
careful,  and  to  act  with  holy  fear,  lest  possibly,  like 
Nadab  and  Abihu,  we  be  chargeable  with  offering 
"strange  fire,"  which  the  Lord  has  not  commanded.  And 
when  one  goes  into  many  a  church  and  chapel,  and 
sees  the  multitude  of  remarkable  devices  by  which, 
as  is  imagined,  the  worship  and  adoration  of  God  is 
furthered,  it  must  be  confessed  that  it  certainly  seems 
as  if  the  generation  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  was  not  yet 
extinct;  even  although  a  patient  God,  in  the  mystery 
of  His  long-suffering,  flashes  not  instantly  forth  His 
vengeance. 

This  then  is  the  first  lesson  of  this  tragic  occurrence. 
We  have  to  do  with  a  God  who  is  very  jealous ;  who 
will  be  worshipped  as  He  wills,  or  not  at  all.  Nor  can 
we  complain.  If  God  be  such  a  Being  as  we  are 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  it  must  be  His  inalienable 
right  to  determine  and  prescribe  how  He  will  be 
served. 


x.i-3.]     NADAB'S  AND  ABIHU'S  ''STRANGE  FIRE."      241 

And  it  is  a  second  lesson,  scarcely  less  evident,  that 
with  God,  intention  of  good,  though  it  palliate,  cannot 
excuse  disobedience  where  He  has  once  made  known 
His  will.  No  one  can  imagine  that  Nadab  and  Abihu 
meant  wrong ;  but  for  all  that,  for  their  sin  they  died. 

Again,  we  are  herein  impressively  taught  that,  with 
God,  high  position  confers  no  immunity  when  a  man 
sins ;  least  of  all,  high  position  in  the  Church.  On  the 
contrary,  the  greater  the  exaltation  in  spiritual  honour 
and  privilege,  the  more  strictly  will  a  man  be  held  to 
account  for  every  failure  to  honour  Him  who  exalted 
him.  We  have  seen  this  illustrated  already  by  the  law 
of  the  sin-offering  ;  and  this  tragic  story  illustrates  the 
same  truth  again. 

But  the  question  naturally  arises,  How  could  these 
men,  who  had  been  so  exalted  in  privilege,  who  had 
even  beheld  the  glory  of  the  God  of  Israel  in  the  holy 
mount  (Exod.  xxiv.  i,  9,  10),  have  ventured  upon  such 
a  perilous  experiment  ?  The  answer  is  probably  sug- 
gested by  the  warning  which  immediately  followed  their 
death  (vv.  8,  9) :  "  The  Lord  spake  unto  Aaron,  saying, 
Drink  no  wine  nor  strong  drink,  .  .  .  when  ye  go 
into  the  tent  of  the  meeting,  that  ye  die  not."  It  is 
certainly  distinctly  hinted  by  these  words,  that  it  was 
under  the  excitement  of  strong  drink  that  these  men  so 
fatally  sinned. 

If  so,  then,  although  their  sin  may  not  be  repeated 
in  its  exact  form  among  us,  yet  the  fact  points  a  very 
solemn  warning,  not  only  regarding  the  careless  use  of 
strong  drink,  but,  more  than  that,  against  all  religious 
worship  and  activity  which  is  inspired  by  other  stimu- 
lus than  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God.  Of  this  every  age 
of  the  Church's  history  has  furnished  sad  examples. 
Sometimes  we  see  it  illustrated  in  *^  revivals,"  even  in 

16 


242  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

such  as  may  be  marked  by  some  evidence  of  the  presence 
of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  when  injudicious  speakers  seek 
by  various  methods  to  work  up  what  is,  after  all, 
merely  a  physical  excitement  of  a  strange,  infectious 
kind,  though  too  often  mistaken  for  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  God.  More  subtle  and  yet  more  common 
is  the  sin  of  such  as  in  preaching  the  Word  find  their 
chief  stimulation  in  the  excitement  of  a  crowded  house, 
or  the  visible  signs  of  approbation  on  the  part  of  the 
hearers;  and  perhaps  sometimes  mistake  the  natural 
effect  of  this  influence  for  the  quickening  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  go  on  to  offer  before  the  Lord  the 
incense  of  their  religious  service  and  worship,  but  with 
"  strange  fire."  Of  this  all  need  to  beware;  and  most 
of  all,  ministers  of  the  Word. 

The  penalty  of  sin  is  often  long  delayed,  but  it  did 
not  lag  in  this  case.  The  strange  fire  in  the  hands  of 
Nadab  and  Abihu  was  met  by  a  flash  of  flame  that  in- 
stantly withered  their  life ;  and,  just  as  they  were,  their 
priestly  robes  upon  them  unconsumed,  their  censers 
in  their  hands,  they  dropped  dead  before  the  fatal 
bolt. 

In  reading  this  account  and  other  similar  narratives 
in  Holy  Scripture,  of  the  deadly  outbreak  of  God's 
wrath,  many  have  felt  not  a  little  disquieted  in  mind 
because  of  the  terrific  severity  of  the  judgment,  which 
to  them  seems  so  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  guilt  of 
the  offender.  And  so,  in  many  hearts,  and  even  to 
many  lips,  the  question  has  perforce  arisen :  Is  it 
possible  to  believe  that  in  this  passage,  for  instance,  we 
have  a  true  representation  of  the  character  of  God  ? 
In  answering  such  a  question  we  ought  always  to 
remember,  first  of  all,  that,  apart  from  our  imperfect 
knowledge,  just  because  we  all  are  sinners,  we  are,  by 


x.i-3.]     NADAB'S  AND  ABIHU'S  "STRANGE  FIRE."      243 

that  fact,  all  more  or  less  disqualified  and  incapacitated 
for  forming  a  correct  and  unbiassed  judgment  regarding 
the  demerit  of  sin.  It  is  quite  certain  that  every  sinful 
man  is  naturally  inclined  to  take  a  lenient  view  of  the 
guilt  of  sin,  and,  by  necessary  consequence,  of  its 
desert  in  respect  of  punishment.  In  approaching  this 
question,  here  and  elsewhere  in  God's  Word,  it  is  im- 
perative that  we  keep  this  fact  in  mind. 

Again,  it  is  not  unnecessary  to  remark,  that  we 
must  be  careful  and  not  read  into  this  narrative  what, 
in  fact,  is  not  here.  For  it  is  often  assumed  without 
evidence,  that  when  we  read  in  the  Bible  of  men 
being  suddenly  cut  off  by  death  for  some  special  sin, 
we  are  therefore  required  to  believe  that  the  temporal 
judgment  of  physical  death  must  have  been  followed, 
in  each  instance,  by  the  judgment  of  the  eternal 
fire.  But  always  to  infer  this  in  such  cases,  when,  as 
here,  nothing  of  the  kind  is  hinted  in  the  text,  is  a 
great  mistake,  and  introduces  a  difficulty  which  is 
wholly  of  our  own  making.  That  sometimes,  at  least, 
the  facts  are  quite  the  opposite,  is  expressly  certified  to 
us  in  I  Cor.  xi.  30-32,  where  we  are  told  that  among 
the  Christians  of  Corinth,  many,  because  of  their 
irreverent  approach  to  the  Holy  Supper  of  the  Lord, 
slept  the  sleep  of  death ;  but  that  these  judgments 
from  the  Lord,  of  bodily  death,  instead  of  being  neces- 
sarily intended  for  their  eternal  destruction,  were  sent 
that  they  might  not  finally  perish.  For  the  Apostle's 
words  are  most  explicit;  for  it  is  with  reference  to 
these  cases  of  sickness  and  death  of  which  he  had 
spoken,  that  he  adds  (ver.  32)  :  '^  But  when  we  are 
(thus)  judged,  we  are  chastened  of  the  Lord,  that  we 
may  not  be  condemned  with  the  world." 

What  we   have   here   before   us,  then,    is   not   the 


244  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

question  of  the  eternal  condemnation  of  Nadab  and 
Abihu  for  their  thoughtless,  though  perhaps  not  so 
intended,  profanation  of  God's  worship, — a  point  on 
which  the  narrative  gives  us  no  information, — but, 
simply  and  only,  the  inflicting  on  them,  for  this  sin, 
of  the  judgment  of  temporal  death.  And  if  this  yet 
seem  to  some  undue  severity,  as  no  doubt  it  will,  there 
remain  other  considerations  which  deserve  to  have 
great  weight  here.  In  the  first  place,  if  this  reveal 
God  as  terribly  severe  in  His  judgment,  even  upon  what, 
compared  with  other  crimes,  may  seem  a  small  sin,  we 
have  to  remember  that,  after  all,  this  God  of  the  Bible, 
this  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  only  herein 
revealed  as  in  this  respect  like  the  God  whose  working 
we  see  in  nature  and  in  history.  Was  the  God  of 
Nadab  and  Abihu  a  severe  God  ?  Is  not  the  God  of 
nature  a  terribly  severe  God  ?  Who  then  is  it  that 
has  so  appointed  the  economy  of  nature  that  even  for 
one  thoughtless  indulgence  by  a  young  man,  he  shall 
be  racked  with  pain  all  his  life  thereafter  ?  It  is  a  law 
of  nature,  one  says.  But  what  is  a  law  of  nature  but 
the  ordinary  operation  of  the  Divine  Being  who  made 
nature  ?  So  let  us  not  forget  that  the  reasoning  which, 
because  of  the  confessed  severity  of  this  judgment  on 
the  sons  of  Aaron,  argues  God  out  of  the  tenth  of 
Leviticus,  and  refuses  to  believe  that  this  can  be  a 
revelation  of  His  mind  and  character,  by  parity  of  reason- 
ing must  go  on  to  argue  God  out  of  nature  and  out  of 
history.  But  if  one  be  not  yet  ready  for  the  latter,  let 
him  take  heed  how  he  too  hastily  decide  on  this  ground 
against  the  verity  of  the  history  and  the  truth  of  the 
revelation  in  the  case  before  us. 

Then,  again,  we  need  to  be  careful  that  we  pass  not 
judgment  before  considering  all  that  was  involved   in 


x.i-3.]     NADAB'S  AND  ABIHU'S  ''STRANGE  FIREr      245 

this  act  of  sin.  We  cannot  look  upon  the  case  as  if 
the  act  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  had  been  merely  a  private 
matter,  personal  to  themselves  alone.  This  it  was  not, 
and  could  not  be.  They  did  what  they  did  in  their 
official  robes  ;  moreover,  it  was  a  peculiarly  public  act : 
it  took  place  before  the  sanctuary,  where  all  the  people 
were  assembled.  What  was  the  influence  of  this  their 
act,  if  it  passed  unrebuked  and  unpunished,  likely  to 
be  ?  History  shows  that  nothing  was  more  inbred  in 
the  nature  of  the  people  than  just  this  tendency  to 
will-worship.  For  centuries  after  this,  notwithstanding 
many  like  terrible  judgments,  it  mightily  prevailed, 
taking  the  forpi  of  numberless  attempted  improvements 
on  the  arrangements  of  worship  appointed  by  God, 
and  introducing,  under  such  pretexts  of  expediency 
often  the  grossest  idolatry.  And  although  the  Baby- 
lonian judgment  made  an  end  of  the  idolatrous  form  of 
will-worship,  the  old  tendency  persisted,  and  worked  on 
under  a  new  form  till,  as  we  learn  from  our  Lord's 
words  in  the  Gospel,  the  people  were  in  His  day 
utterly  overwhelmed  with  "  heavy  burdens  and  grievous 
to  be  borne,"  rabbinical  additions  to  the  law,  attempted 
improvements  on  Moses,  under  pretext  of  honouring 
Moses,  all  begotten  of  this  same  inveterate  spirit  of 
will-worship.  Nor  are  such  things  of  little  conse- 
quence, as  some  seem  to  imagine,  whether  we  find  them 
among  Jews  or  in  Christian  communions.  On  the 
contrary,  all  will-worship,  in  all  its  endless  variety  of 
forms,  tends  to  confuse  conscience,  by  confounding 
with  the  commandments  of  God  the  practices  and 
traditions  of  men ;  and  all  history,  no  less  of  the 
Church  than  of  Israel,  shows  that  the  tendency  of  all 
such  will-worship  is  to  the  subversion  alike  of  morality 
and  religion,  occasioning,  too  often,  total  misapprehen- 


246  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


sion  as  to  what  indeed  is  the  essence  of  religion  well 
pleasing  to  God. 

Was  the  sin  of  the  priests,  Nadab  and  Abihu,  then, 
committed  in  such  a  public  manner,  such  a  trifling 
matter  after  all  ?  And  when  we  further  remember  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  occasion, — that  the  whole 
ceremonial  of  the  day  was  designed  in  a  special  manner 
to  instruct  the  people  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
Jehovah,  their  King  and  their  God,  would  be  wor- 
shipped,— it  certainly  is  not  so  hard,  after  all,  to  see 
how  it  was  almost  imperative  that  in  the  very  beginning 
of  Israel's  national  history,  God  should  give  them  a 
lesson  on  the  sanctity  of  His  ordinances  and  His  hatred 
of  will-worship,  which  should  be  remembered  to  all 
time. 

The  solemn  lesson  of  the  terrible  judgment,  Moses, 
as  Prophet  and  Interpreter  of  God's  will  to  the  people, 
declares  in  these  words  (ver.  3)  :  ''  This  is  it  that  the 
Lord  spake,  saying,  I  will  be  sanctified  in  them  that 
come  nigh  Me,  and  before  all  the  people  I  will  be 
glorified." 

If  God  separate  a  people  to  be  specially  near  unto 
Him,  it  is  that,  admitted  to  such  special  nearness  to 
Himself,  they  shall  ever  reverently  recognise  His  trans- 
cendent exaltation  in  holiness,  and  take  care  that  He 
be  ever  glorified  in  them  before  all  men.  But  if  any  be 
careless  of  this,  God  will  nevertheless  not  be  defrauded. 
If  they  will  recognise  His  august  holiness,  in  the 
reverence  of  loyal  service,  well ;  God  shall  thus  glorify 
Himself  in  them  before  all.  But  if  otherwise,  still  God 
will  be  glorified  in  them  before  all  people,  though  now 
in  their  chastisement  and  in  retribution.  The  principle 
is  that  which  is  announced  by  Amos  (iii.  2) :  '^  You  only 
have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth  ;  therefore  I 


x.4-7]  NADAB'S  AND  ABIHU'S  "STRANGE  FIRE."        247 


will  visit  upon  you  all  your  iniquities."  And  when  we 
remember  that  the  sons  of  Aaron  typically  represent 
the  whole  body  of  believers  in  Christ,  as  a  priestly 
people,  it  is  plain  that  the  warning  of  this  judgment 
comes  directly  home  to  us  all.  If,  as  Christians,  we 
have  been  brought  into  a  relation  of  special  nearness 
and  privilege  with  God,  we  have  to  remember  that  the 
place  of  privilege  is,  in  this  case,  a  place  of  peculiar 
danger.  If  we  forget  the  reverence  and  honour  due 
to  His  name,  and  insist  on  will-worship  of  any  kind, 
we  shall  in  some  way  suffer  for  it.  God  may  wink  at 
the  sins  of  others,  but  not  at  ours.  He  is  a  God  of 
love,  and  desires  not  our  death,  but  that  He  may  be 
glorified  in  our  life  ;  but  if  any  will  not  have  it  so,  He 
will  not  be  robbed  of  His  glory.  Hence  the  warning 
of  the  Apostle  Peter,  who  was  so  filled  with  these  Old 
Testament  conceptions  of  God  and  His  worship :  "  It 
is  written.  Ye  shall  be  holy,  for  I  am  holy.  And  if  ye 
call  on  Him  as  Father,  who  without  respect  of  persons 
judgeth  according  to  each  man's  work,  pass  the  time 
of  your  sojourning  in  fear"  (i  Peter  i.  17). 

Ver.  3  :  ''  And  Aaron  held  his  peace." 

For  rebellion  were  useless ;  nay,  it  had  been  mad- 
ness. Even  the  tenderest  natural  affection  must  be 
silent  when  God  smites  for  sin  ;  and  in  this  case  the 
sin  was  so  manifest,  and  the  connection  therewith  of 
the  judgment  so  evident,  that  Aaron  could  say  nothing, 
though  his  heart  must  have  been  breaking. 

Mourning  in  Silence. 

X.  4.7. 

"  And  Moses  called  Mishael  and  Elzaphan,  the  sons  of  Uzziel  the 
uncle  of  Aaron,  and  said  unto  them,  Draw  near,  carry  your  brethren 
from   before   the  sanctuary  out  of  the   camp.     So  they  drew  near, 


248  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

and  carried  them  in  their  coats  out  of  the  camp ;  as  Moses  had 
said.  And  Moses  said  unto  Aaron,  and  unto  Eleazar  and  unto 
Ithamar,  his  sons,  Let  not  the  hair  of  your  heads  go  loose,  neither 
rend  your  clothes ;  that  ye  die  not,  and  that  He  be  not  wroth  with 
all  the  congregation :  but  let  your  brethren,  the  whole  house  of 
Israel,  bewail  the  burning  which  the  Lord  hath  kindled.  And  ye 
shall  not  go  out  from  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting,  lest  ye  die ;  for 
the  anointing  oil  of  the  Lord  is  upon  j'^ou.  And  they  did  according 
to  the  word  of  Moses." 

Even  in  ordinary  cases,  restrictions  were  placed  upon 
Aaron  and  his  sons  as  regards  the  outward  signs  of 
mourning  ;  but  exceptions  were  made  in  the  case  of 
the  nearest  relations,  and,  in  particular,  of  the  death 
of  a  son,  or  a  brother  (chap.  xxi.  2).  In  this  case, 
however,  this  permission  could  not  be  given ;  and  they 
are  warned  that  by  public  expressions  of  grief  they 
would  not  only  bring  death  from  the  Lord  upon  them- 
selves, but  also  bring  His  wrath  upon  the  whole  con- 
gregation which  they  represented  before  God.  They 
are  not  indeed  forbidden  to  mourn  in  their  hearts,  but 
from  all  the  outward  and  customary  signs  of  mourning 
they  must  abstain.  And  the  reason  for  this  is  given  ; 
''  The  anointing  oil  of  the  Lord  is  upon  you."  That  is, 
by  the  anointing  they  had  been  set  apart  to  represent 
God  before  Israel.  Hence,  when  God  had  thus  mani- 
fested His  holy  wrath  against  sin,  for  them  to  have 
exhibited  the  public  signs  of  mourning  for  this,  even 
though  the  stroke  of  wrath  had  fallen  into  their  own 
family,  would  have  been  a  visible  contradiction  between 
their  actions  and  their  priestly  position.  To  others, 
indeed,  these  outward  tokens  of  mourning  are  expressly 
permitted,  for  they  stood  in  no  such  special  relation 
to  God;  their  brethren,  "the  whole  house  of  Israel,'' 
might  bewail  the  burning  which  the  Lord  had  kindled, 
but  they,  although  nearest  of  kin  to  the  dead,  are  not 


x.4-7.]  NADAB'S  AND  ABIHU'S  '* STRANGE  FIRE:'         249 

permitted  even  to  follow  the  slain  of  the  Lord  to  the 
grave,  and  (vv.  4,  5)  the  sad  duty  is  assigned  to 
their  cousins,  who  bear  the  dead,  in  their  white  priestly 
robes,  just  as  they  had  fallen,  out  of  the  camp  to  burial, 
while  Aaron  and  his  sons  mourn  silently  within  the 
tent  of  meeting. 

This  has  seemed  hard  to  many,  and  has  furnished 
some  another  illustration  of  the  hardness  and  severity 
of  the  character  of  God  as  held  up  in  the  Pentateuch. 
But  we  shall  do  well  to  remember  that  in  all  this  we 
have  nothing  which  in  any  respect  goes  beyond  the 
very  solemn  words  of  the  tender-hearted  and  most 
compassionate  Saviour,  who  said,  for  example,  "  If 
any  man  cometh  unto  Me,  and  hateth  not  his  own 
father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethren, 
and  sisters,  ...  he  cannot  be  My  disciple"  (Luke 
xiv.  26).  In  language  such  as  this,  we  cannot  but 
recognise  the  same  character  as  in  this  command  unto 
Aaron  and  his  sons ;  and  if  such  '*  hard  sayings  "  are  to 
be  held  reason  for  rejecting  the  revelation  of  the  cha- 
racter of  God  as  given  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  same 
logic,  in  the  presence  of  similar  words,  will  require  us 
also  to  reject  the  revelation  of  God's  character  as  given 
by  Christ  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  teaching  of  both  Testaments  on  this  matter  is 
plain.  Natural  affection  is  right ;  it  is  indeed  implanted 
in  our  hearts  by  the  God  who  made  us  in  all  our  human 
relations.  But  none  the  less,  whenever  the  feelings 
which  belong  even  to  the  nearest  and  tenderest  earthly 
relations  come  into  conflict  with  absolute  fealty  and 
submission  to  the  will  of  God,  and  unswerving  loyalty 
to  the  will  of  Christ,  then,  hard  though  indeed  it  may 
be,  natural  affection  must  give  way,  and  mourn  within 
the  tent  in  the  silence  of  a  holy  submission  to  the  Lord. 


250  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

Carefulness  after  Judgment. 

X.  8-20. 

"And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Aaron,saying,  Drink  no  wine  nor  strong 
drink,  thou,  nor  thy  sons  with  thee,  when  ye  go  into  the  tent  of 
meeting,  that  ye  die  not;  it  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  throughout 
your  generations  :  and  that  ye  may  put  difference  between  the  holy 
and  the  common,  and  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean ;  and  that 
ye,  may  teach  the  children  of  Israel  all  the  statutes  which  the  Lord 
hath  spoken  unto  them  by  the  hand  of  Moses.  And  Moses  spake 
unto  Aaron,  and  unto  Eleazar  and  unto  Ithamar,  his  sons  that  were 
left,  Take  the  meal  offering  that  remaineth  of  the  oflferings  of  the 
Lord  made  by  fire,  and  eat  it  without  leaven  beside  the  altar :  for 
it  is  most  holy :  and  ye  shall  eat  it  in  a  holy  place,  because  it  is  thy 
due,  and  thy  sons'  due,  of  the  offerings  of  the  Lord  made  by  fire :  for 
so  I  am  commanded.  And  the  wave  breast  and  the  heave  thigh  shall 
ye  eat  in  a  clean  place ;  thou,  and  thy  sons,  and  thy  daughters  with 
thee:  for  they  are  given  as  thy  due,  and  thy  sons'  due,  out  of  the 
sacrifices  of  the  peace  offerings  of  the  children  of  Israel.  The  heave 
thigh  and  the  wave  breast  shall  they  bring  with  the  offerings  made 
by  fire  of  the  fat,  to  wave  it  for  a  wave  offering  before  the  Lord  :  and 
it  shall  be  thine,  and  thy  sons'  with  thee,  as  a  due  for  ever ;  as  the 
Lord  hath  commanded.  And  Moses  diligently  sought  the  goat  of  the 
sin  offering,  and,  behold,  it  was  burnt :  and  he  was  angry  with  Eleazar 
and  with  Ithamar,  the  sons  of  Aaron  that  were  left,  saying.  Where- 
fore have  ye  not  eaten  the  sin  offering  in  the  place  of  the  sanctuary, 
seeing  it  is  most  holy,  and  He  hath  given  it  you  to  bear  the  iniquity 
of  the  congregation,  to  make  atonement  for  them  before  the  Lord  ? 
Behold,  the  blood  of  it  was  not  brought  into  the  sanctuary  within  : 
ye  should  certainly  have  eaten  it  in  the  sanctuary,  as  I  commanded. 
And  Aaron  spake  unto  Moses,  Behold,  this  day  have  they  offered 
their  sin  offering  and  their  burnt  offering  before  the  Lord ;  and  there 
have  befallen  me  such  things  as  these  :  and  if  I  had  eaten  the  sin 
offering  to-day,  would  it  have  been  well-pleasing  in  the  sight  of  the 
Lord  ?     And  when  Moses  heard  that,  it  was  well-pleasing  in  his  sight." 

Such  a  judgment  as  the  foregoing  ought  to  have  had  a 
good  effect,  and  it  did.  This  appeared  in  renewed  care- 
fulness to  secure  the  most  exact  obedience  hereafter  in 
all  their  official  duties.  To  this  end,  the  Lord  Himself 
now  laid  down  a  law  evidently  designed  to  preclude, 


x.8-20.]  NADAB'S  AND  ABIHU'S  "STRANGE  FIRE."      251 

as  far  as  possible,  every  risk  of  any  such  fault  in  the 
priestly  service  as  might  again  bring  dovs^n  judgment. 
It  is  not  only  holiness,  but  considerate  and  anxious 
love,  which  speaks  in  the  next  words,  addressed  to 
Aaron  (vv.  8,  9)  :  "  Drink  no  wine  nor  strong  drink, 
thou,  nor  thy  sons  with  thee,  when  ye  go  into  the  tent 
of  meeting,  that  ye  die  not :  it  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever 
throughout  your  generations." 

And  for  this  prohibition  the  reason  is  given  (vv. 
10,  11):  "That  ye  may  put  difference  between  the 
holy  and  the  common,  and  between  the  unclean  and 
the  clean  ;  and  that  ye  may  teach  the  children  of  Israel 
all  the  statutes  which  the  Lord  hath  spoken  unto  them 
by  the  hand  of  Moses." 

It  was  not  then  that  the  use  oi  wine  was  in  itself 
sinful ;  for  this  is  taught  nowhere  in  the  Old  or  New 
Testament,  and  as  a  doctrine  of  religion  is  characteristic, 
not  of  Judaism  or  Christianity,  but  only  of  Moham- 
medanism, of  Buddhism  and  other  heathen  religions. 
The  ground  of  this  command  of  abstinence,  as  of  the 
New  Testament  counsel  (Rom.  xiv.  20,  21),  is  that  of 
expediency.  Because,  in  the  use  of  wine  or  strong  drink, 
there  was  involved  a  certain  risk,  that  by  undue  indul- 
gence the  judgment  might  be  confused  or  the  memory 
weakened,  so  that  something  might  be  done  amiss; 
therefore  the  priests,  who  were  specially  commissioned 
to  teach  the  statutes  of  the  Lord  to  Israel,  and  this 
most  of  all,  by  their  own  carefulness  to  obey  all  the  least 
of  His  commandments,  are  here  warned  to  abstain 
whenever  about  engaging  in  their  official  duties.  As 
suggested  above,  it  is  at  least  very  natural  to  infer, 
from  the  historical  setting  of  this  prohibition,  that  the 
fatal  offence  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  was  occasioned  by 
such  an  indulgence  in  wine  or  strong  drink  as  made  it 


252  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

possible  for  impulse  to  get  the  better  of  knowledge  and 
judgment. 

But,  however  this  may  be,  the  lesson  for  us  abides 
the  same;  a  lesson  which  each  one  according  to  his 
circumstances  must  faithfully  apply  to  his  own  case. 
For  the  Christian  it  is  not  enough  that  he  shall  abstain 
from  what  is  in  its  own  nature  always  sinful ;  it  must 
be  the  law  of  our  life  that  we  abstain  also  from  what- 
ever may  needlessly  become  occasion  of  sin.  In  this 
we  cannot,  indeed,  lay  down  a  universal  code  of  law. 
Heathen  reformers  have  done  this,  and  their  imitators 
in  the  Church,  but  never  Christ  or  His  Apostles.  And 
this  with  reason.  For  that  which  for  one  carries  with 
it  inevitable  risk  of  sin,  is  not  always  fraught  with  the 
same  danger  to  another  person  with  a  different  tem- 
perament, or  even  to  the  same  person  under  different 
circumstances.  In  each  instance  we  must  judge  for 
ourselves,  taking  heed  not  to  abuse  our  liberty  to 
another's  harm ;  and  also,  on  the  other  hand,  being 
careful  how  we  judge  others  in  regard  to  things  which 
in  their  essential  nature  are  neither  right  nor  wrong. 
But  we  shall  be  wise  to  recognise  the  fact  that  it  is  just 
in  such  things  that  many  Christians  do  most  harm, 
both  to  their  own  souls  and  to  those  of  others.  And  in 
regard  to  the  drinking  of  wine  in  particular,  one  must 
be  blind  indeed  not  to  perceive  it  to  be  the  fact  that, 
whatever  the  reason  may  be,  the  English-speaking 
peoples  seem  to  be  peculiarly  susceptible  to  the  danger 
of  undue  indulgence  in  wine  and  strong  drink.  On 
both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  drunkenness  must  be  set 
down  as  one  of  the  most  prevalent  national  sins. 

In  deciding  the  question  of  personal  duty  in  this  and 
like  cases,  all  believers  are  bound,  as  the  Lord's  priestly 
people,  to  remember  that  He  has  appointed  them  that 


x.8-20.]  NADAB'S  AND  ABIHU'S  "STRANGE  FIRE."      253 

they  should  walk  before  Him  as  a  separated  people, 
who,  by  their  daily  walk,  above  all,  are  to  teach  others 
to  **put  a  difference  between  holy  and  common,  and 
unclean  and  clean,  and  to  observe  all  the  statutes  which 
the  Lord  hath  spoken." 

In  w.  12-15  we  have  a  repetition  of  the  command- 
ments previously  given,  concerning  the  use  to  be  made 
of  the  meal-offering  and  the  peace-offering.  From  this 
it  appears  that  Moses  himself,  in  view  of  the  tragic 
occurrence  of  the  day,  was  stirred  up  to  charge  Aaron 
and  his  sons  anew  on  matters  on  which  he  had  already 
commanded  them.  And  with  this  intensified  care  on 
his  part  is  evidently  connected  the  incident  recorded 
in  the  verses  which  follow,  where  we  read  that,  having 
repeated  the  directions  as  to  the  meal-offering  and  the 
peace-offering  (vv.  16,  17),  ^^  Moses  diligently  sought 
the  goat  of  the  sin  offering,  and,  behold,  it  was  burnt ; 
and  he  was  angry  with  Eleazar  and  with  Ithamar, 
the  sons  of  Aaron  that  were  left,  saying.  Wherefore 
have  ye  not  eaten  the  sin  offering  in  the  place  of  the 
sanctuary,  seeing  it  is  most  holy,  and  He  hath  given  it 
you  to  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  congregation,  to  make 
atonement  for  them  before  the  Lord  ?  " 

It  had  indeed  been  commanded,  in  the  case  of  those 
sin-offerings  of  which  the  blood  was  brought  into  the 
holy  place,  that  their  flesh  should  not  be  eaten ;  but 
that  the  flesh  of  all  others  should  be  eaten,  as  belonging 
to  the  class  of  things  "  most  holy,"  by  the  priests  alone 
within  the  Holy  Place.  Hence  Moses  continued  (ver. 
i8)j:  ''Behold,  the  blood  of  it  was  not  brought  into  the 
sanctuary  within :  ye  should  certainly  have  eaten  it  in 
the  sanctuary,  as  I  commanded." 

What  had  been  done,  as  it  appears,  had  been  done 
with  Aaron's  knowledge  and  sanction ;  for  Aaron  then 


254  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

answered  in  behalf  of  his  sons  (ver.  19)  :  *'  Behold, 
this  day  have  they  offered  their  sin  offering  and  their 
burnt  offering  before  the  Lord ;  and  there  have  befallen 
me  such  things  as  these  :  and  if  I  had  eaten  the  sin 
offering  to-day,  would  it  have  been  well-pleasing  in  the 
sight  of  the  Lord  ?  " 

Of  which  answer,  the  intention  seems  to  have  been 
this.  In  this  day  of  special  exaltation  and  privilege, 
when  for  the  first  time  they  had  performed  their  solemn 
priestly  duties,  when  most  of  all  there  should  have 
been  the  utmost  care  to  please  the  Lord  in  the  very 
smallest  things.  His  holy  Name  had  been  profaned  by 
the  will-worship  of  his  sons,  and  the  wrath  of  God  had 
broken  out  against  them,  and,  in  them,  against  their 
father's  house.  Could  it  be  the  will  of  God  that  a  house 
in  which  was  found  the  guilt  of  such  a  sin,  should  yet 
partake  of  the  most  holy  things  of  God  in  the  sanctuary? 

From  this  it  appears  that  the  judgpient  sent  into  the 
house  of  Aaron  had  had  a  most  wholesome  spiritual 
effect.  They  had  received  such  an  impression  of  their 
own  profound  sinfulness  as  they  had  never  had  before. 
And  it  is  very  instructive  to  observe  that  they  assume 
to  themselves  a  part  in  the  sinfulness  which  had  been 
shown  in  the  sin  of  Nadab  and  Abihu.  It  did  not 
occur  to  Aaron  or  his  remaining  sons  to  say,  in  the 
spirit  of  Israel  in  the  day  of  our  Lord,  ^'  If  we  had 
been  in  their  place,  we  would  not  have  done  so." 
Rather  their  consciences  had  been  so  awakened  to  the 
holiness  of  God  and  their  own  inborn  evil,  that  they 
coupled  themselves  with  the  others  as  under  the  dis- 
pleasure of  God.  Was  it  possible,  even  though  they 
personally  had  not  sinned,  that  such  as  they  should 
eat  that  which  was  most  holy  unto  God  ?  They  had 
thus  in  the  letter  disobeyed  the  law  ;  but  because  their 


X.8-20.]  NADAB'S  AND  ABIHU'S  "STRANGE  FIRE."      255 

offence  was  begotten  of  a  misapprehension,  and  only 
showed  how  deeply  and  thoroughly  they  had  taken  to 
heart  the  lesson  of  the  sore  judgment,  we  read  that 
"  when  Moses  heard  "  their  explanation,  ^'  it  was  well 
pleasing  in  his  sight." 

All  this  which  followed  the  sin  of  Nadab  and  Abihu, 
and  the  judgment  which  fell  on  them,  and  thus  upon 
the  whole  house  of  Aaron,  is  a  most  instructive  illus- 
tration of  the  working  of  the  chastising  judgments  of 
the  Lord,  when  rightly  received.  Its  effect  was  to 
awaken  the  utmost  solicitude  that  nothing  else  might 
be  found  about  the  tabernacle  service,  even  through 
oversight,  which  was  not  according  to  the  mind  of 
God ;  and,  in  those  immediately  stricken,  to  produce  a 
very  profound  sense  of  personal  sinfulness  and  un- 
worthiness  before  God.  The  New  Testament  gives  us 
a  graphic  description  of  this  effect  of  the  chastisement 
of  God  on  the  believer,  in  the  account  which  we  have 
of  the  result  of  the  disciphne  which  the  Apostle  Paul 
inflicted  on  the  sinning  member  of  the  Church  of 
Corinth ;  concerning  which  he  afterward  wrote  to 
them  (2  Cor.  vii.  1 1 )  :  "  Behold,  this  selfsame  thing, 
that  ye  were  made  sorry  after  a  godly  sort,  what  earnest 
care  it  wrought  in  you,  yea,  what  clearing  of  yourselves, 
yea,  what  indignation,  yea,  what  fear,  yea,  what  longing, 
yea,  what  zeal,  yea,  what  avenging  !  " 

A  good  test  is  this,  which,  when  we  have  passed 
under  the  chastising  hand  of  God,  we  may  well  apply 
to  ourselves  :  this  "  earnest  care,"  this  "  clearing  of 
ourselves,"  this  holy  fear  of  a  humbled  heart, — have 
we  known  what  it  means  ?  If  so,  though  we  sorrow, 
we  may  yet  rejoice  that  by  grace  we  are  enabled  to 
sorrow  ^' after  a  godly  sort,"  with  ^' a.  repentance  which 
bringeth  no  regret." 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

THE    GREAT  DAY   OF  ATONEMENT, 
Lev.  xvi.   1-34. 

IN  the  first  verse  of  chapter  xvi.,  which  ordains  the 
ceremonial  for  the  great  annual  day  of  atonement, 
we  are  told  that  this  ordinance  was  delivered  by  the  Lord 
to  Moses  "  after  the  death  of  the  two  sons  of  Aaron, 
when  they  drew  near  before  the  Lord,  and  died."^ 
Because  of  the  close  historical  connection  thus  declared 
between  this  chapter  and  chapter  x.,  and  also  because 
in  this  ordinance  the  Mosaic  sacrificial  worship,  which 
has  been  the  subject  of  the  book  thus  far,  finds  its  cul- 
mination, it  seems  most  satisfactory  to  anticipate  the 
order  of  the  book  by  taking  up  at  this  point  the  exposi- 
tion of  this  chapter,  before  proceeding  in  chapter  xi.  to 
a  wholly  different  subject. 

This  ordinance  of  the  day  of  atonement  was  perhaps 
the  most  important  and  characteristic  in  the  whole  Mosaic 
legislation.     In  the  law  of  the  offerings,  the  most  dis- 

'  The  interposition  of  chapters  xi,-xv.  on  ceremonial  uncleanness, 
between  chapters  x.  and  xvi.,  which  are  so  closely  connected  by  this 
historical  note  in  xvi.  I,  certainly  suggests  an  editorial  redaction — 
as  the  phrase  is — in  which  the  latter  chapter,  for  whatsoever  reason, 
has  been  removed  from  its  original  context.  But  that  such  a 
redaction,  of  which  we  have  in  the  book  other  traces,  does  not  of 
necessity  affect  in  the  slightest  degree  the  question  of  its  inspiration 
and  Divine  authority,  should  be  self-evident. 


xvi  I-I9.]      THE  GREAT  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  257 

tinctive  part  was  the  law  of  the  sin-offering;  and  it 
was  on  the  great  annual  day  of  atonement  that  the 
conceptions  embodied  in  the  sin-offering  obtained  their 
most  complete  development.  The  central  place  which 
this  day  occupied  in  the  whole  system  of  sacred  times 
is  well  illustrated  in  that  it  is  often  spoken  of  by 
the  rabbis,  without  any  more  precise  designation, 
as  simply  "  Yoma!^  "  The  Day."  It  was  "  the  day " 
because,  on  this  day,  the  idea  of  sacrificial  expiation 
and  the  consequent  removal  of  all  sin,  essential  to  the 
life  of  peace  and  fellowship  with  God,  which  was  set 
forth  imperfectly,  as  regards  individuals  and  the  nation, 
by  the  daily  sin-offerings,  received  the  highest  possible 
symbolical  expression.  It  is  plain  that  countless  sins 
and  transgressions  and  various  defilements  must  yet 
have  escaped  unrecognised  as  such,  even  by  the  most 
careful  and  conscientious  Israelite ;  and  that,  for  this 
reason,  they  could  not  have  been  covered  by  any  of 
the  daily  offerings  for  sin.  Hence,  apart  from  this 
full,  solemn,  typical  purgation  and  cleansing  of  the 
priesthood  and  the  congregation,  and  the  holy  sanc- 
tuary, from  the  uncleannesses  and  transgressions  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  "even  all  their  sins"  (ver.  16),  the 
sacrificial  system  had  yet  fallen  short  of  expressing  in 
adequate  symbolism  the  ideal  of  the  complete  removal 
of  all  sin.  With  abundant  reason  then  do  the  rabbis 
regard  it  as  the  day  of  days  in  the  sacred  year. 

It  is  insisted  by  the  radical  criticism  of  our  day  that 
the  general  sense  of  sin  and  need  of  expiation  which  this 
ordinance  expresses  could  not  have  existed  in  the  days 
of  Moses ;  and  that  since,  moreover,  the  later  historical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  contain  no  reference  to  the 
observance  of  the  day,  therefore  its  origin  must  be 
attributed  to  the  days  of  the  restoration  from  Babylon, 

17 


258  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

when,  as  such  critics  suppose,  the  deeper  sense  of  sin, 
developed  by  the  great  judgment  of  the  Babylonian 
captivity  and  exile,  occasioned  the  elaboration  of  this 
ritual. 

To  this  one  might  reply  that  the  objection  rests  upon 
an  assumption  which  the  Christian  believer  cannot  admit, 
that  the  ordinance  was  merely  a  product  of  the  human 
mind.  But  if,  as  our  Lord  constantly  taught,  and 
as  the  chapter  explicitly  affirms,  the  ordinance  was  a 
matter  of  Divine,  supernatural  revelation,  then  naturally 
we  shall  expect  to  find  in  it,  not  man's  estimate  of  the 
guilt  of  sin,  but  God's,  which  in  all  ages  is  the  same. 

But,  meeting  such  objectors  on  their  own  ground, 
we  need  not  go  into  the  matter  further  than  to  refer 
to  the  high  authority  of  Dillmann,  who  declares  this 
theory  of  the  post-exilian  origin  of  this  institution  to 
be  ^'absolutely  incredible;"  and  in  reply  to  the  objec- 
tion that  the  day  is  not  alluded  to  in  the  whole  Old 
Testament  history,  justly  adds  that  this  argument  from 
silence  would  equally  forbid  us  to  assign  the  origin  of 
the  ordinance  to  the  days  of  the  return  from  Babylon, 
or  any  of  the  pre-Christian  centuries  !  for  "  one  would 
then  have  to  maintain  that  the  festival  first  arose  in  the 
first  Christian  century ;  since  only  out  of  that  age  do 
we  first  have  any  explicit  testimonies  concerning  it."^ 

Again,  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter  gives  as  the  occa- 
sion of  the  promulgation  of  this  law,  *'  the  death  of  the 
two  sons  of  Aaron,"  Nadab  and  Abihu,  ''when  they 
drew  near  before  the  Lord  and  died  ; "  a  historical  note 
which  is  perfectly  natural  if  we  have  here  a  narrative 
dating  from  Mosaic  days,  but  which  seems  most  object- 
less and  unlikely  to  have  been  entered,  if  the  law  were 

^  "Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  2  Aufl.,  p.  525. 


xvi  I- 1 9.]     THE  GREAT  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  259 

a  late  invention  of  rabbinical  forgers.  On  that  occasion 
it  was,  as  we  read  (v.  2),  that  "  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  Speak  unto  Aaron  thy  brother,  that  he  come 
not  at  all  times  into  the  holy  place  within  the  veil, 
before  the  mercy-seat  which  is  upon  the  ark;  that  he 
die  not :  for  I  will  appear  in  the  cloud  upon  the  mercy- 
seat." 

Into  this  place  of  Jehovah's  most  immediate  earthly 
manifestation,  even  Aaron  is  to  come  only  once  a  year, 
and  then  only  with  atoning  blood,  as  hereinafter 
prescribed. 

The  object  of  the  whole  service  of  this  day  is  repre- 
sented as  atonement ;  expiation  of  sin,  in  the  highest 
and  fullest  sense  then  possible.  It  is  said  to  be 
appointed  to  make  atonement  for  Aaron  and  for  his 
house  (ver.  6),  for  the  holy  place,  and  for  the  tent  of 
meeting  (vv.  15-17);  for  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  in 
the  outer  court  (vv.  18,  19);  and  for  all  the  congrega- 
tion of  Israel  (vv.  20-22,  33);  and  this,  not  merely  for 
such  sins  of  ignorance  as  had  been  afterward  recognised 
and  acknowledged  in  the  ordinary  sin-offerings  of  each 
day,  but  for  "  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children  of  Israel, 
and  all  their  transgressions,  even  all  their  sins :  "  even 
such  as  were  still  unknown  to  all  but  God  (ver.  21). 
The  fact  of  such  an  ordinance  for  such  a  purpose 
taught  a  most  impressive  lesson  of  the  holiness  of  God 
and  the  sinfulness  of  man,  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on 
the  other,  the  utter  insufficiency  of  the  daily  offerings 
to  cleanse  from  all  sin.  Day  by  day  these  had  been 
offered  in  each  year ;  and  yet,  as  we  read  (Heb.  ix.  8,  9), 
the  Holy  Ghost  this  signified  by  this  ordinance,  '^  that 
the  way  into  the  holy  place  hath  not  yet  been  made  mani- 
fest ; "  it  was  "  a  parable  for  the  time  now  present ; " 
teaching  that  the  temple   sacrifices  of  Judaism  could 


26o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

not  "  as  touching  the  conscience,  make  the  worshipper 
perfect "  (Heb.  ix.  9).  We  may  well  reverse  the  judg- 
ment of  the  critics,  and  say — not  that  the  deepened 
sense  of  sin  in  Israel  was  the  cause  of  the  day  of  atone- 
ment ;  but  rather,  that  the  solemn  observances  of  this 
day,  under  God,  were  made  for  many  in  Israel  a  most 
effective  means  to  deepen  the  conviction  of  sin. 

The  time  which  was  ordained  tor  this  annual  observ- 
ance is  significant — the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month. 
It  was  appointed  for  the  seventh  month,  as  the  sabbatic 
month,  in  which  all  the  related  ideas  of  rest  in  God 
and  with  God,  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  a 
now  complete  redemption,  received  in  the  great  feast 
of  tabernacles  their  fullest  expression.  It  was  there- 
fore appointed  for  that  month,  and  for  a  day  which 
shortly  preceded  this  greatest  of  the  annual  feasts,  to 
signify  in  type  the  profound  and  most  vital  truth,  that 
the  full  joy  of  the  sabbatic  rest  of  man  with  God,  and 
the  ingathering  of  the  fruits  of  complete  redemption, 
is  only  possible  upon  condition  of  repentance  and  the 
fullest  possible  expiation  for  sin.  It  was  appointed  for 
the  tenth  day  of  this  month,  no  doubt,  because  in  the 
Scripture  symbolism  the  number  ten  is  the  symbol  of 
completeness ;  and  was  fitly  thus  connected  with  a 
service  which  signified  expiation  completed  for  the  sins 
of  the  year. 

The  observances  appointed  for  the  day  had  regard, 
first,  to  the  people,  and,  secondly,  to  the  tabernacle 
service.  As  for  the  former,  it  was  commanded  (ver.  29) 
that  they  should  ^'do  no  manner  or  work,"  observing 
the  day  as  a  Sabbath  Sabbathon,  **  a  high  Sabbath,"  or 
*' Sabbath  of  solemn  rest"  (ver.  31);  and,  secondly, 
that  they  should  "  afflict  their  souls"  (ver.  31),  namely, 


xvi  1-19.]     THE  GREAT  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  261 


by  solemn  fasting,  in  visible  sign  of  sorrow  and 
humiliation  for  sin.  By  which  it  was  most  distinctly 
taught,  that  howsoever  complete  atonement  may  be,  and 
howsoever,  in  making  that  atonement  through  a  sacri- 
ficial victim,  the  sinner  himself  have  no  part,  yet  apart 
from  his  personal  repentance  for  his  sins,  that  atone- 
ment shall  profit  him  nothing;  nay,  it  was  declared 
(xxiii.  29),  that  if  any  man  should  fail  on  this  point, 
God  would  cut  him  off  from  his  people.  The  law 
abides  as  regards  the  greater  sacrifice  of  Christ ;  except 
we  repent,  we  shall,  even  because  of  that  sacrifice,  only 
the  more  terribly  perish ;  because  not  even  this  supreme 
exhibition  of  the  holy  love  and  justice  of  God  has  moved 
us  to  renounce  sin. 

As  regards  the  tabernacle  service  for  the  day,  the 
order  was  as  follows.  First,  as  most  distinctive  of  the 
ritual  of  the  day,  only  the  high-priest  could  officiate. 
The  other  priests,  who,  on  other  occasions,  served  con- 
tinually in  the  holy  place,  must  on  this  day,  during 
these  ceremonies,  leave  it  to  him  alone  ;  taking  their 
place,  themselves  as  sinners  for  whom  also  atonement 
was  to  be  made,  with  the  sinful  congregation  of  their 
brethren.  For  it  was  ordered  (ver.  17):  "There  shall 
be  no  man  in  the  tent  of  meeting  when  the  high  priest 
goeth  in  to  make  atonement  in  the  holy  place,  until  he 
come  out,"  and  the  work  of  atonement  be  completed. 

And  the  high  priest  could  himself  officiate  only  after 
certain  significant  preparations.  First  (ver.  4),  he  must 
"  bathe  in  water "  his  whole  person.  The  word  used 
in  the  original  is  different  from  that  which  is  used  of 
the  partial  washings  in  connection  with  the  daily  cere- 
monial cleansings;  and,  most  suggestively,  the  same 
complete  washing  is  required  as  that  which  was  ordered 
in  the  law  for  the  consecration  of  the  priesthood,  and 


262  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

for  cleansing  from  leprosy  and  other  specific  defile- 
ments.  Thus  was  expressed,  in  the  clearest  manner 
possible,  the  thought,  that  the  high  priest,  who  shall  be 
permitted  to  draw  near  to  God  in  the  holiest  place,  and 
there  prevail  with  Him,  must  himself  be  wholly  pure  and 
clean. 

Then,  having  bathed,  he  must  robe  himself  in  a 
special  manner  for  the  service  of  this  day.  He  must 
lay  aside  the  bright-coloured  "  garments  for  glory  and 
beauty "  which  he  wore  on  all  other  occasions,  and 
put  on,  instead,  a  vesture  of  pure,  unadorned  white,  like 
that  of  the  ordinary  priest ;  excepting  only  that  for  him, 
on  this  day,  unlike  them,  the  girdle  also  must  be  white. 
By  this  substitution  of  these  garments  for  his  ordinary 
brilliant  robes  was  signified,  not  merely  the  absolute 
purity  which  the  white  linen  symbolised,  but  especially 
also,  by  the  absence  of  adornment,  humiliation  for  sin. 
On  this  day  he  was  thus  made  in  outward  appearance 
essentially  like  unto  the  other  members  of  his  house, 
for  whose  sin,  together  with  his  own,  he  was  to  make 
atonement. 

Thus  washed  and  robed,  wearing  on  his  white 
turban  the  golden  crown  inscribed  **  Holiness  to 
Jehovah  "  (Exod.  xxviii.  38),  he  now  took  (w.  3,  5-7), 
as  a  sin-offering  for  himself  and  for  his  house,  a 
bullock ;  and  for  the  congregation,  '*  two  he-goats  for 
a  sin  offering;"  with  a  ram  for  himself,  and  one  for 
them,  for  a  burnt  offering.  The  two  goats  were  set 
"  before  the  Lord  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting." 
The  bullock  was  the  offering  before  prescribed  for  the 
sin-offering  for  the  high  priest  (iv.  3),  as  being  the 
most  valuable  of  all  sacrificial  victims.  For  the  choice 
of  the  goats  many  reasons  have  been  given,  none  of 
which  seem   wholly  satisfactory.     Both  of  the  goats 


xvi  i-ig.]     THE  GREAT  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  263 


are  equally  declared  (ver.  5)  to  be  ^*  for  a  sin  offering  ; " 
yet  only  one  was  to  be  slain. 

The  ceremonial  which  followed  is  unique ;  it  is 
without  its  like  either  in  Mosaism  or  in  heathenism.  It 
was  ordered  (ver.  8)  :  "  Aaron  shall  cast  lots  upon  the 
two  goats  ;  one  lot  for  the  Lord;  and  the  other  lot  for 
Azazel ; "  an  expression  to  which  we  shall  shortly 
return.  Only  the  goat  on  whom  the  lot  fell  for  the 
Loid  was  to  be  slain. 

Ihe  two  goats  remain    standing  before  the   Lord ; 
whilt  now  Aaron  kills  the  sin-offering  for  himself  and 
for  hi3  house  (ver.   ii)  ;  then  enters,  first,  the  Holy  of 
Holiei  within  the  veil,  having  taken  (ver.   12)  a  censer 
"  full  ■)f  coals  of  fire  from   off  the   altar  before  the 
Lord,"  with  his  hands  full  of  incense  (ver.  13),  "that 
the  cloui  of  the  incense  may  cover  the  mercy-seat  that 
is  upon  he  testimony  (i.e.,  the  two  tables  of  the  law 
within  tie  ark),  that  he  die  not."     Then  (ver.  13)  he 
sprinkles  the   blood    "  upon   the   mercy-seat    on    the 
east " — by  which  was  signified  the  application  of  the 
blood   Gooward,  accompanied  with   the  fragrance  of 
intercessior   for  the   expiation   of  his  own  sins   and 
those  of  hishouse ;  and  then  ^'  seven  times,  before  the 
mercy-seat,"— evidently,  on  the  floor  of  the  sanctuary, 
for  the  symbolic  cleansing  of  the  holiest  place,  defiled 
by  all  the  unceannesses  of  the  children  of  Israel,  in  the 
midst  of  whon  it  stood.     Then,  returning,  he  kills  the 
goat  of  the  siioffering  *^  for  Jehovah,"  and  repeats  the 
same  ceremon}'  now  in  behalf  of  the  whole  congrega- 
tion, sprinkling  as  before,  the  mercy-seat,  and,  seven 
times,  the  Holy)f  Holies,  thus  making  atonement  for 
it,   ''because  of  the  uncleannesses  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  and  becase  of  their  transgressions,   even  all 
their  sins  "  (ver.  5).     In  like  manner,  he  was  then  to 


j64  the  book  of  LEVITICUS. 


cleanse,  by  a  seven-fold  sprinkling,  the  Holy  Place ; 
and  then  again  going  into  the  outer  court,  also  the 
altar  of  burnt-offering ;  this  last,  doubtless,  as  in  other 
cases,  by  applying  the  blood  to  the  horns  of  the  altar. 

In  all  this  it  will  be  observed  that  the  difference 
from  the  ordinary  sin-offerings  and  the  wider  reach  of 
its  symbolical  virtue  is  found,  not  in  that  the  offeriig 
is  different  from  or  larger  than  others,  but  in  tiat, 
symbolically  speaking,  the  blood  is  brought,  as  ir  no 
other  offering,  into  the  most  immediate  presence  of 
God ;  even  into  the  secret  darkness  of  the  Hoy  of 
HoHes,  where  no  child  of  Israel  might  tread.  For 
this  reason  did  this  sin-offering  become,  abcve  all 
others,  the  most  perfect  type  of  the  one  offeing  of 
Him,  the  God-Man,  who  reconciled  us  to  God  ly  doing 
that  in  reality  which  was  here  done  in  symlol,  even 
entering  with  atoning  blood  into  the  very  presence  of 
God,  there  to  appear  in  our  behalf. 

AZAZEL. 

xvi.  20-28.  / 

"And  when  he  hath  made  an  end  of  atoning  for  th&ioly  place,  and 
the  tent  of  meeting,  and  the  altar,  he  shall  present  th'live  goat:  and 
Aaron  shall  lay  both  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  th  live  goat,  and 
confess  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children  i  Israel,  and  all 
their  transgressions,  even  all  their  sins ;  and  he  sha^  put  them  upon 
the  head  of  the  goat,  and  shall  send  him  away  by  te  hand  of  a  man 
that  is  in  readiness  into  the  wilderness  :  and  the  got  shall  bear  upon 
him  all  their  iniquities  unto  a  solitary  land  :  and  b  shall  let  go  the 
goat  in  the  wilderness.  And  Aaron  shall  come  in*  the  tent  of  meet- 
ing, and  shall  put  off  the  linen  garments,  which  li  put  on  when  he 
went  into  the  holy  place,  and  shall  leave  them  lere  :  and  he  shall 
bathe  his  flesh  in  water  in  a  holy  place,  and  put  n  his  garments,  and 
come  forth,  and  offer  his  burnt  offering  and  the  urnt  offering  of  the 
people,  and  make  atonement  for  himself  and  forhe  people.  And  the 
fat  of  the  sin  offering  shall  he  burn  upon  the  al<r.  And  he  that  let- 
teth  go  the    goat  for'  Azazel  shall  wash  his  (Othes,  and    bathe  his 


xvi. 20-28.]     THE  GREA T  DAY  OF  A TONEMENT.  265 

flesh  in  water,  and  afterward  he  shall  come  into  the  camp.  And 
the  bullock  of  the  sin  offering,  and  the  goat  of  the  sin  offering,  whose 
blood  was  brought  in  to  make  atonement  in  the  holy  place,  shall 
be  carried  forth  without  the  camp ;  and  they  shall  burn  in  the  fire 
their  skins,  and  their  flesh,  and  their  dung.  And  he  that  burneth 
them  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  his  flesh  in  water,  and  after- 
ward he  shall  come  into  the  camp." 

And  now  followed  the  second  stage  of  the  ceremonial, 
a  rite  of  the  most  singular  and  impressive  character. 
The  live  goat,  during  the  former  part  of  the  ceremony, 
had  been  left  standing  before  Jehovah,  where  he  had 
been  placed  after  the  casting  of  the  lot  (ver.  10).  The 
rendering  of  King  James'  version,  that  the  goat  was 
so  placed,  '*  to  make  an  atonement  with  him,"  assumes 
a  meaning  to  the  Hebrew  preposition  here  which  it 
never  has.  Usage  demands  either  that  which  is  given 
in  the  text  or  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version,  to  make 
atonement  *^for  him  "  or  ^'  over  him."  But  to  the  former 
the  objection  seems  insuperable  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  whole  rite  suggesting  an  atonement  as  made 
for  this  living  goat ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the 
rendering  ^'  over "  be  adopted  from  the  margin,  it  may 
not  unnaturally  be  understood  of  the  performance  over 
this  goat  of  that  part  of  the  atonement  ceremonial 
described  as  follows  : — 

Vv.  20-22  :  '*  When  he  hath  made  an  end  of  atoning 
for  the  holy  place,  and  the  tent  of  meeting,  and  the 
altar,  he  shall  present  the  live  goat  .  .  .  and  confess  over 
him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  all 
their  transgressions,  even  all  their  sins ;  and  he  shall 
put  them  upon  the  head  of  the  goat,  and  shall  send  him 
a\Yay  by  the  hand  of  a  man  that  is  in  readiness  into 
the  wilderness :  and  the  goat  shall  bear  upon  him  all 
their  iniquities  unto  a  solitary  land  :  and  he  shall  let  go 
the  goat  in  the  wilderness."     And  with  this  ceremony 


266  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

the  atonement  was  completed.  Aaron  now  laid  aside 
the  robes  which  he  had  put  on  for  this  service,  bathed 
again,  and  put  on  again  his  richly  coloured  garments 
of  office,  came  forth  and  offered  the  burnt-offering  for 
himself  and  for  the  people,  and  burnt  the  fat  of  the 
sin-offering  as  usual  on  the  altar  (vv.  23-25),  while  its 
flesh  was  burned,  according  to  the  law  for  such  sacrifices, 
without  the  camp  (ver.  27). 

What  was  the  precise  significance  of  this  part  of  the 
service,  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  questions  which 
arises  in  the  exposition  of  this  book  ;  the  answer  to 
which  chiefly  turns  upon  the  meaning  which  is  attached 
to  the  expression,  "  for  Azazel "  (O.V.,  "  for  a  scape- 
goat ").     What  is  the  meaning  of  ''  Azazel  "  ? 

There  are  three  fundamental  facts  which  stand  before 
us  in  this  chapter,  which  must  find  their  place  in  any 
explanation  which  may  be  adopted,  i.  Both  of  the 
goats  are  declared  to  be  "  a  sin-offering ; "  the  live  goat, 
no  less  than  the  other.  2.  In  consistency  with  this,  the 
live  goat,  no  less  than  the  other,  was  consecrated  to 
Jehovah,  in  that  he  was  *^set  alive  before  the  Lord." 
3.  The  function  expressly  ascribed  to  him  in  the  law 
is  the  complete  removal  of  the  transgressions  of  Israel, 
symbolically  transferred  to  him  as  a  burden,  by  the 
laying  on  of  hands  with  confession  of  sin.  Passing  by, 
then,  several  interpretations,  which  seem  intrinsically 
irreconcilable  with  one  or  other  of  these  facts,  or  are, 
for  other  reasons,  to  be  rejected,  the  case  seems  to  be 
practically  narrowed  down  to  this  alternative.  Either 
Azazel  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  name  of  an  evil  spirit, 
conceived  of  as  dwelling  in  the  wilderness,  or  else  it  is 
to  be  taken  as  an  abstract  noun,  as  in  the  margin  (R.  V.), 
signifying  "  removal,"  *'  dismissal."  That  the  word 
may  have  this  meaning  is  very  commonly  admitted  even 


xvi.20-28.]      THE  GREAT  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  267 

by  those  who  deny  that  meaning  here ;  and  if,  with 
Bahr  ^  and  others,  we  adopt  it  in  this  passage,  all  that 
follows  is  quite  clear.  The  goat  ''  for  removal "  bears 
away  all  the  iniquities  of  Israel,  which  are  symbolically 
laid  upon  him,  into  a  solitary  land ;  that  is,  they  are 
taken  wholly  away  from  the  presence  of  God  and  from 
the  camp  of  His  people.  Thus,  as  the  killing  and 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  first  goat  visibly  set  forth 
the  means  of  reconciliation  with  God,  through  the  sub- 
stituted offering  of  an  innocent  victim,  so  the  sending 
away  of  the  second  goat,  laden  with  those  sins,  the 
expiation  of  which  had  been  signified  by  the  sacrifice  of 
the  first,  no  less  vividly  set  forth  the  effect  of  that 
sacrifice,  in  the  complete  removal  of  those  expiated  sins 
from  the  holy  presence  of  Jehovah.  That  this  effect  of 
atonement  should  have  been  adequately  represented  by 
the  first  slain  victim  was  impossible ;  hence  the  necessity 
for  the  second  goat,  ideally  identified  with  the  other, 
as  jointly  constituting  with  it  one  sin-offering,  whose 
special  use  it  should  be  to  represent  the  blessed  effect 
of  atonement.  The  truth  symboHsed,  as  the  goat  thus 
bore  away  the  sins  of  Israel,  is  expressed  in  those  glad 
words  (Psalm  ciii.  12),  "As  far  as  the  east  is  from 
the  west,  so  far  hath  He  removed  our  transgressions 
from  us  ;  "  or,  under  another  image,  by  Micah  (vii.  19), 
'^Thou  wilt  cast  all  their  sins  into  the  depths  of  the 
sea." 

So  far  all  seems  quite  clear,  and  this  explanation,  no 
doubt,  will  always  be  accepted  by  many. 

And  yet  there  remains  one  serious  objection  to  this 
interpretation ;  namely,  that  the  meaning  we  thus  give 
this  word  *'  Azazel "  is  not  what  we  would  expect  from 

^  "  Symbolik  des  Mosaischen  Cultus,"  2  Band.,  p.  668. 


268  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

the  phrase  which  is  used  regarding  the  casting  of  the 
lots  (ver.  8) :  "  One  lot  for  the  Lord,  and  the  other  lot 
for  Azazel."  These  words  do  most  naturally  suggest 
that  Azazel  is  the  name  of  a  person,  who  is  here  con- 
trasted with  Jehovah;  and  hence  it  is  believed  by  a 
large  number  of  the  best  expositors  that  the  term  must 
be  taken  here  as  the  name  of  an  evil  spirit,  represented 
as  dwelling  in  the  wilderness,  to  whom  this  goat,  thus 
laden  with  Israel's  sins,  is  sent.  In  addition  to  this 
phraseology,  it  is  urged,  in  support  of  this  interpreta- 
tion, that  even  the  Scripture  lends  apparent  sanction  to 
the  Jewish  belief  that  demons  are,  in  some  special  sense, 
the  inhabitants  of  waste  and  desolate  places ;  and,  in 
particular,  that  Jewish  demonology  does  in  fact  recog- 
nise a  demon  named  Azazel,  also  called  Sammael.  It 
is  admitted,  indeed,  that  the  name  Azazel  does  not 
occur  in  the  Scripture  as  the  name  of  Satan  or  of  any 
evil  spirit ;  and,  moreover,  that  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  Jewish  belief  concerning  the  existence  of  a 
demon  called  Azazel  dates  nearly  so  far  back  as  Mosaic 
days  ;  and,  again,  that  even  the  rabbis  themselves  are 
not  agreed  on  this  interpretation  here,  many  of  them 
rejecting  it,  even  on  traditional  grounds.  Still  the  in- 
terpretation has  secured  the  support  of  the  majority  of 
the  best  modern  expositors,  and  must  claim  respectful 
consideration. 

But  if  Azazel  indeed  denotes  an  evil  spirit  to  whom 
the  second  goat  of  the  sin-offering  is  thus  sent,  laden 
with  the  iniquities  of  Israel,  the  question  then  arises  : 
How  then,  on  this  supposition,  is  the  ceremony  to  be 
interpreted  ? 

The  notion  of  some,  that  we  have  in  this  rite  a  relic 
of  the  ancient  demon-worship,  is  utterly  inadmissible. 
For  this  goat  is  expressly  said  (ver.  5)  to  have  been, 


xvi. 20-28.]      THE  GREA T  DAY  OF  A TONEMENT.  269 

equally  with  the  goat  that  was  slain,  "  a  sin-offering," 
and  (vv.  10,  20)  it  is  placed  "  before  the  Lord,"  as  an 
offering  to  Him  ;  nor  is  there  a  hint,  here  or  elsewhere, 
that  this  goat  was  sacrificed  in  the  wilderness  to  this 
Azazel ;  while,  moreover,  in  this  very  priest-code  (xvii. 
7-9,  R.V.)  this  special  form  of  idolatry  is  forbidden, 
under  the  heaviest  penalty. 

That  the  goat  sent  to  Azazel  personified,  by  way  of 
warning  and  in  a  typical  manner,  Israel,  as  rejecting 
the  great  Sin-offering,  and  thus  laden  with  iniquity,  and 
therefore  delivered  over  to  Satan,  is  an  idea  equally 
untenable.  For  the  goat,  as  we  have  seen,  is  regarded 
as  ideally  one  with  the  goat  which  is  slain  ;  they  jointly 
constitute  one  sin-offering.  If,  therefore,  the  slain  goat 
represented  in  type  Christ  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  our 
Sin-offering,  so  also  must  this  goat  represent  Him  as 
our  Sin-offering.  Further,  the  ceremonial  which  is 
performed  over  him  is  explicitly  termed  an  "  atone- 
ment ; "  that  is,  it  was  an  essential  part  of  a  ritual 
designed  to  symbolise,  not  the  condemnation  of  Israel 
for  sin,  but  their  complete  deliverance  from  the  guih: 
of  their  sins. 

Not  to  speak  of  other  explanations,  more  or  less 
untenable,  which  have  each  found  their  advocates,  the 
only  one  which,  upon  this  understanding  of  the  mean- 
ing of  Azazel,  the  context  and  the  analogy  of  the 
Scripture  will  both  admit,  appears  to  be  the  following. 
Holy  Scripture  teaches  that  Satan  has  power  over  man, 
only  because  of  man's  sin.  Because  of  his  sin,  man  is 
judicially  left  by  God  in  Satan's  power  (i  John  v.  19, 
R.V.).  When  as  "  the  prince  of  this  world  "  he  came 
to  the  sinless  Man,  Jesus  Christ,  he  had  nothing  in 
Him,  because  He  was  the  Holy  One  of  God ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  is  represented  (Heb.  ii.  14)  as 


270  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

having  over  men  under  sin  '^  the  authority  of  death." 
In  full  accord  with  this  conception,  he  is  represented, 
both  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  as  the  accuser 
of  God's  people.  He  is  said  to  have  accused  Job  before 
God  (Job  i.  9-1 1 ;  ii.  4,  5).  When  Zechariah  (iii.  i) 
saw  Joshua  the  high-priest  standing  before  the  angel 
of  Jehovah,  he  saw  Satan  also  standing  at  his  right 
hand  to  be  his  *^  adversary."  So,  again,  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse (xii.  10)  he  is  called  ''  the  Accuser  of  our  brethren, 
which  accuseth  them  before  our  God  day  and  night," 
and  who  is  only  overcome  by  means  of  ''  the  blood  of 
the  Lamb." 

To  this  Evil  One,  then,  the  Accuser  and  Adversary 
of  God's  people  in  all  ages — if  we  assume  the  interpreta- 
tion before  us — the  live  goat  was  symbolically  sent, 
bearing  on  him  the  sins  of  Israel.  But  does  he  bear 
their  sins  as  forgiven,  or  as  unforgiven  ?  Surely,  as 
forgiven ;  for  the  sins  which  he  symbolically  carries 
are  those  very  sins  of  the  bygone  year  for  which 
expiating  blood  had  just  been  offered  and  accepted  in 
the  Holy  of  HoHes.  Moreover,  he  is  sent  as  being 
ideally  one  with  the  goat  that  was  slain.  As  sent  to 
Azazel,  he  therefore  symbolically  announces  to  the  Evil 
One  that  with  the  expiation  of  sin  by  sacrificial  blood 
the  foundation  of  his  power  over  forgiven  Israel  is  gone. 
His  accusations  are  now  no  longer  in  place  ;  for  the 
whole  question  of  Israel's  sin  has  been  met  and  settled 
in  the  atoning  blood.  Thus,  as  the  acceptance  of  the 
blood  of  the  one  goat  offered  in  the  Holiest  symbolised 
the  complete  propitiation  of  the  offended  holiness  of 
God  and  His  pardon  of  Israel's  sin,  so  the  sending  of 
the  goat  to  Azazel  symbolised  the  effect  of  this  expia- 
tion, in  the  complete  removal  of  all  the  penal  effects 
of   sin,   through   deliverance   by  atonement   from   the 


xvi.20-28.]     THE  GREAT  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  271 

power  of  the  Adversary  as  the  executioner  of  God's 
wrath. 

Which  of  these  two  interpretations  shall  be  accepted 
must  be  left  to  the  reader  :  that  neither  is  without 
difficulty,  those  who  have  most  studied  this  very  obscure 
question  will  most  readily  admit ;  that  either  is  at 
least  consistent  with  the  context  and  with  other  teach- 
ings of  Scripture,  should  be  sufficiently  evident.  In 
either  case,  the  symbolic  intention  of  the  first  part  of 
the  ritual,  with  the  first  goat,  was  to  symbolise  the 
means  of  reconciliation  with  God ;  namely,  through  the 
offering  unto  God  of  the  life  of  an  innocent  victim, 
substituted  in  the  sinner's  place  :  in  either  case  alike, 
the  purpose  of  the  second  part  of  the  ceremonial,  with 
the  second  goat,  was  to  symbolise  the  blessed  effect  of 
this  expiation  ;  either,  if  the  reading  of  the  margin  be 
taken,  in  the  complete  removal  of  the  expiated  sin  from 
the  presence  of  the  Holy  God,  or,  if  Azazel  be  taken 
as  a  proper  name,  in  the  complete  deliverance  of  the 
sinner,  through  expiatory  blood  presented  in  the  Holiest, 
from  the  power  of  Satan.  If  in  the  former  case,  we 
think  of  the  words  already  cited,  *'  As  far  as  the  east 
is  from  the  west,  so  far  hath  He  removed  our  trans- 
gressions from  us ; "  in  the  latter  the  words  from  the 
Apocalypse  (xii.  10,  ii)  come  to  mind,  "The  Accuser 
of  our  brethren  is  cast  down,  which  accuseth  them 
before  our  God  day  and  night.  And  they  overcame 
him  because  of  the  blood  of  the  Lamb." 

On  other  particulars  in  the  ceremonial  of  the  day  we 
need  not  dwell,  as  they  have  received  their  exposition 
in  earHer  chapters  of  the  law  of  the  offerings.  Of  the 
burnt-offerings,  indeed,  which  followed  the  dismissal 
of  the  living  goat  of  the  sin-offering,  little  is  said  ;  it 
is,  emphatically,  the  sin-offering  upon  which,  above  all 


272  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

else,  it  was  designed  to  centre  the  attention  of  Israel 
on  this  occasion. 

And  so,  with  an  injunction  to  the  perpetual  observ- 
ance of  this  day,  this  remarkable  chapter  closes.  In 
it  the  sacrificial  law  of  Moses  attains  its  supreme 
expression  ;  the  holiness  and  the  grace  ahke  of  Israel's 
God,  their  fullest  revelation.  For  the  like  of  the  great 
day  of  atonement,  we  look  in  vain  in  any  other  people. 
If  every  sacrifice  pointed  to  Christ,  this  most  lumin- 
ously of  all.  What  the  fifty-third  of  Isaiah  is  to  his 
Messianic  prophecies,  that,  we  may  truly  say,  is  the 
sixteenth  of  Leviticus  to  the  whole  system  of  Mosaic 
types, — the  most  consummate  flower  of  the  Messianic 
symbolism.  All  the  sin-offerings  pointed  to  Christ, 
the  great  High  Priest  and  Victim  of  the  future;  but 
this,  as  we  shall  now  see,  with  a  distinctness  found  in 
no  other. 

As  the  unique  sin-offering  of  this  day  could  only  be 
offered  by  the  one  high-priest,  so  was  it  intimated 
that  the  High  Priest  of  the  future,  who  should 
indeed  make  an  end  of  sin,  should  be  one  and  only. 
As  once  only  in  the  whole  year,  a  complete  cycle 
of  time,  this  great  atonement  was  offered,  so  did 
it  point  toward  a  sacrifice  which  should  indeed  be 
''  once  for  all  "  (Heb.  ix.  26 ;  x.  10) ;  not  only  for  the 
lesser  aeon  of  the  year,  but  for  the  aeon  of  aeons  which 
is  the  lifetime  of  humanity.  In  that  the  high-priest, 
who  was  on  all  other  occasions  conspicuous  among  his 
sons  by  his  bright  garments  made  for  glory  and  for 
beauty,  on  this  occasion  laid  them  aside,  and  assumed 
the  same  garb  as  his  sons  for  whom  he  was  to 
make  atonement ;  herein  was  shadowed  forth  the  truth 
that  it  behoved  the  great  High  Priest  of  the  future  to 
be  "in  all  things  made  like  unto  His  brethren"  (Heb 


xvi. 20-28.]     THE  GREAT  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  273 

ii.  17).  When,  having  offered  the  sin-offering,  Aaron 
disappeared  from  the  sight  of  Israel  within  the  veil, 
where  in  the  presence  of  the  unseen  glory  he  offered 
the  incense  and  sprinkled  the  blood,  it  was  presignified 
how  "  Christ  having  come  a  High  Priest  of  the  good 
things  to  come,  through  the  greater  and  more  perfect 
tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  .  .  .  nor  yet  through 
the  blood  of  goats  and  calves,  but  through  His  own 
blood,  entered  in  once  for  all  into  the  holy  place,"  even 
"into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  before  the  face  of 
God  for  us  "  (Heb.  ix.  11,  12,  24).  And,  in  like  manner, 
in  that  when  the  sin-offering  had  been  offered,  the 
blood  sprinkled,  and  his  work  within  the  veil  was 
ended,  arrayed  again  in  his  glorious  garments,  he  re- 
appeared to  bless  the  waiting  congregation ;  it  was 
again  foreshown  how  yet  that  must  be  fulfilled  which 
is  written,  that  this  same  Christ,  "  having  been  once 
offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  shall  appear  a  second 
time,  apart  from  sin,  to  them  that  wait  for  Him,  unto 
salvation  "  (Heb.  ix.  28). 

To  all  this  yet  more  might  be  added  of  dispensa- 
tional  truth  typified  by  the  ceremonial  of  this  day, 
which  we  defer  to  the  exposition  of  chap,  xxv.,  where 
its  consideration  more  properly  belongs.  But  even 
were  this  all,  what  a  marvellous  revelation  here  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ !  The  fact  of  these  correspondences 
between  the  Levitical  ritual  and  the  New  Testament 
facts,  let  it  be  observed,  is  wholly  independent  of  the 
questions  as  to  the  date  and  origin  of  this  law ;  and 
every  theory  on  this  subject  must  find  a  place  for  these 
correspondences  and  account  for  them.  But  how  can 
any  one  believe  that  all  these  are  merely  accidental 
coincidences  of  a  post-exilian  forgery  with  the  facts 
of   the   incarnation,    and   the    high   priestly   work   of 

18 


274  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

Christ  in  death  and  resurrection  as  set  forth  in  the 
Gospels  ?  How  can  they  all  be  adequately  accounted 
for,  except  by  assuming  that  to  be  true  which  is  ex- 
pressly taught  in  the  New  Testament  concerning  this 
very  ritual:  that  in  it  the  Holy  Ghost  presignified  things 
that  were  to  come  ;  that,  therefore,  the  ordinance  must 
have  been,  not  of  man,  but  of  God ;  not  a  mere  pro- 
duct of  the  human  mind,  acting  under  the  laws  of  a 
religious  evolution,  but  a  revelation  from  Him  unto 
whom  "  known  are  all  His  works  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world  "  ? 

Nor  must  we  fail  to  take  in  the  blessed  truth  so 
vividly  symbolised  in  the  second  part  of  the  ceremonial. 
When  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering  had  been  sprinkled 
in  the  Holiest,  the  sins  of  Israel  were  then,  by  the 
other  goat  of  the  sin-offering,  borne  far  away.  Israel 
stood  there  still  a  sinful  people ;  but  their  sin,  now 
expiated  by  the  blood,  was  before  God  as  if  it  were  not. 
So  does  the  Holy  Victim  in  the  Antitype,  who  first  by 
His  death  expiated  sin,  then  as  the  Living  One  bear 
away  all  the  believer's  sins  from  the  presence  of  the 
Holy  One  into  a  land  of  forgetfulness.  And  so  it  is 
that,  as  regards  acceptance  with  God,  the  believing 
sinner,  though  still  a  sinner,  stands  as  if  he  were  sin- 
less ;  all  through  the  great  Sin-offering.  To  see  this, 
to  believe  in  it  and  rest  in  it,  is  life  eternal ;  it  is  joy, 
and  peace,  and  rest !     It  is  the  Gospel  ! 


PART   II. 
THE  LAW  OF   THE  DAILY  LIFE, 

XI.-XV.,   XVII. -XXV. 


Section  i.    The  Law  concerning  the  Clean  and  the 

Unclean  :  xi.-xv. 
Section  2.    The  Law  of  Holiness  :  xvii.-xxii. 
Section  3.    The  Law  concerning  Sacred  Times  (with 

Episode,  xxiv.) :  xxiii.-xxv. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS,  AND  DEFILE- 
MENT BY  DEAD  BODIES. 

Lev.  xi.  1-47. 

WITH    chap.  xi.    begins   a   new   section    of  this 
book,   extending  to  the  end    of  chap,  xv.,  of 
which  the  subject  is  the  law  concerning  various  bodily 
defilements,  and  the  rites  appointed  for  their  removal. 
The  law  is  given  under  four  heads,  as  follows  : — 
I.  Clean  and  Unclean  Animals,  and  Defilement  by 

Dead  Bodies  :  chap.  xi. 
11.  The  Uncleanness  of  Child-birth  :  chap.  xii. 

III.  The  Uncleanness  of  Leprosy :  chaps,  xiii.,  xiv. 

IV.  The  Uncleanness  of  Issues  :  chap.  xv. 

From  the  modern  point  of  view  this  whole  subject 
appears  to  many,  with  no  little  reason,  to  be  encom- 
passed with  peculiar  difficulties.  We  have  become 
accustomed  to  think  of  religion  as  a  thing  so  exclusively 
of  the  spirit,  and  so  completely  independent  of  bodily 
conditions,  provided  that  these  be  not  in  their  essential 
nature  sinful,  that  it  is  a  great  stumbling-block  to  many 
that  God  should  be  represented  as  having  given  to 
Israel  an  elaborate  code  of  laws  concerning  such  sub- 
jects as  are  treated  in  these  five  chapters  of  Leviticus : 
a  legislation  which,  to  not  a  few,  seems  puerile  and  un- 
spiritual,  if  not  worse.    And  yet,  for  the  reverent  believer 


278  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

in  Christ,  who  remembers  that  our  blessed  Lord  did 
repeatedly  refer  to  this  book  of  Leviticus  as,  without 
any  exception  or  qualification,  the  Word  of  His  Father, 
it  should  not  be  hard,  in  view  of  this  fact,  to  infer  that 
the  difficulties  which  most  of  us  have  felt  are  pre- 
sumably due  to  our  very  imperfect  knowledge  of  the 
subject.  Remembering  this,  we  shall  be  able  to 
approach  this  part  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and,  in  particu- 
lar, this  chapter,  with  the  spirit,  not  of  critics,  but  of 
learners,  who  know  as  yet  but  little  of  the  mysteries 
of  God's  dealings  with  Israel  or  with  the  human 
race. 

Chap.  xi.  may  be  divided  into  two  sections,  together 
with  a  concluding  appeal  and  summary  (vv.  41-47). 
The  first  section  treats  of  the  law  of  the  clean  and  the 
unclean  in  relation  to  eating  (vv.  1-23).  Under  this 
head,  the  animals  which  are  permitted  or  forbidden  are 
classified,  after  a  fashion  not  scientific,  but  purely 
empirical  and  practical,  into  (i)  the  beasts  which  are 
upon  the  earth  (vv.  2-8) ;  (2)  things  that  are  in  the 
waters  (vv.  9-12)  ;  (3)  flying  things, — comprising,  first, 
birds  and  flying  animals  like  the  bat  (vv.  13-19);  and, 
secondly,  insects,  "  winged  creeping  things  that  go  upon 
all  four  "  (vv.  20-23). 

The  second  section  treats  of  defilement  by  contact 
with  the  dead  bodies  of  these,  whether  unclean  (w. 
24-38),  or  clean  (vv.  39,  40). 

Of  the  living  things  among  the  beasts  that  are  upon 
the  earth  (w.  2-8),  those  are  permitted  for  food  which 
both  chew  the  cud  and  divide  the  hoof;  every  animal 
in  which  either  of  these  marks  is  wanting  is  forbidden. 
Of  the  things  which  live  in  the  waters,  those  only  are 
allowed  for  food  which  have  both  fins  and  scales  ;  those 
which  lack  either  of  these  marks,  such  as,  for  example. 


xi.  1-47.]  CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  279 

eels,  oysters,  and  all  the  mollusca  and  Crustacea,  are 
forbidden  (vv.  9-12).  Of  flying  things  (w.  13-19) 
which  may  be  eaten,  no  special  mark  is  given ;  though 
it  is  to  be  noted  that  nearly  all  of  those  which  are  by 
name  forbidden  are  birds  of  prey,  or  birds  reputed  to  be 
unclean  in  their  habits.  All  insects,  "  winged  creeping 
things  that  go  upon  all  four  "  (ver.  20),  or  "  whatsoever 
hath  many  feet,"  or  "  goeth  upon  the  belly,"  as  worms, 
snakes,  etc.,  are  prohibited  (ver.  42).  Of  insects,  a 
single  class,  described  as  those  ^'  which  have  legs  above 
their  feet,  to  leap  withal  upon  the  earth,"  is  excepted 
(vv.  21,  22)  :  these  are  known  to  us  as  the  order  Salfa- 
toria,  including,  as  typical  examples,  the  cricket,  the 
grasshopper,  and  the  migratory  locust;  all  of  which, 
it  may  be  noted,  are  clean  feeders,  living  upon  vege- 
table products  only.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the 
law  of  the  clean  and  the  unclean  in  food  is  not  extended, 
as  it  was  in  Egypt,  to  the  vegetable  kingdom. 

The  second  section  of  the  chapter  (vv.  24-40)  com- 
prises a  number  of  laws  relating  chiefly  to  defilement 
by  contact  with  the  dead  bodies  of  animals.  In  these 
regulations,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  dead  body, 
even  of  a  clean  animal,  except  when  killed  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law,  so  that  its  blood  is  all  drained  out 
(xvii.  10-16),  is  regarded  as  defiling  him  who  touches 
it ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  even  an  unclean  animal 
is  not  held  capable  of  imparting  defilement  by  mere 
contact,  so  long  as  it  is  living.  Very  minute  charges 
are  given  (vv.  29-38)  concerning  eight  species  of  un- 
clean animals,  of  which  six  (vv.  29,  30,  R.V.)  appear 
to  be  different  varieties  of  the  lizard  family.  Regard- 
ing these,  it  is  ordered  that  not  only  shall  the  person 
be  held  unclean  who  touches  the  dead  body  of  one  of 
them  (ver.  31),  but  also  anything  becomes  unclean  on 


28o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

which  such  a  dead  body  may  fall,  whether  household 
utensil,  or  food,  or  drink  (vv.  32-35).  The  exception 
only  is  made  (vv.  36-38),  that  fountains,  or  wells  of 
water,  or  dry  seed  for  sowing,  shall  not  be  held  to  be 
by  such  defiled. 

That  which  has  been  made  unclean  must  be  put  into 
water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even  (ver.  32)  ;  with 
the  exception  that  nothing  which  is  made  of  earthen- 
ware, whether  a  vessel,  or  an  oven,  or  a  range,  could 
be  thus  cleansed ;  for  the  obvious  reason  that  the 
water  could  not  adequately  reach  the  interior  of  its 
porous  material.  It  must  therefore  be  broken  in  pieces 
(vv.  33,  34).  If  a  person  be  defiled  by  any  of  these, 
he  remained  unclean  until  the  even  (ver.  31).  No 
washing  is  prescribed,  but,  from  analogy,  is  probably  to 
be  taken  for  granted. 

Such  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  law  of  the  clean  and 
the  unclean  as  contained  in  this  chapter.  To  preclude 
adding  needless  difficulty  to  a  difficult  subject,  the 
remark  made  above  should  be  specially  noted, — that  so 
far  as  general  marks  are  given  by  which  the  clean  is 
to  be  distinguished  from  the  unclean,  these  marks  are 
evidently  selected  simply  from  a  practical  point  of  view, 
as  of  easy  recognition  by  the  common  people,  for 
whom  a  more  exact  and  scientific  mode  of  distinction 
would  have  been  useless.  We  are  not  therefore  for  a 
moment  to  think  of  cleanness  or  uncleanness  as  causally 
determined,  for  instance,  by  the  presence  or  absence  of 
fins  or  scales,  or  by  the  habit  of  chewing  the  cud,  and 
the  dividing  of  the  hoof,  or  the  absence  of  these  marks, 
as  if  they  were  themselves  the  ground  of  the  cleanness 
or  uncleanness,  in  any  instance.  For  such  a  fancy  as 
this,  which  has  diverted  some  interpreters  from  the 
right  line  of  investigation  of  the  subject,  there  is  no 


xi.  1.47,]  CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  281 

warrant  whatever  in  the  words  of  the  law,  either  here 
or  elsewhere. 

Than  this  law  concerning  things  clean  and  unclean 
nothing  will  seem  to  many,  at  first,  more  alien  to 
modern  thought,  or  more  inconsistent  with  any  in- 
teUigent  view  of  the  world  and  of  man's  relation  to  the 
things  by  which  he  is  surrounded.  And,  especially, 
that  the  strict  observance  of  this  law  should  be  con- 
nected with  religion,  and  that,  upon  what  professes  to 
be  the  authority  of  God,  it  should  be  urged  on  Israel 
on  the  ground  of  their  call  to  be  a  holy  people  to  a  holy 
God, — this,  to  the  great  majority  of  Bible  readers, 
certainly  appears,  to  say  the  least,  most  extraordinary 
and  unaccountable.  And  yet  the  law  is  here,  and  its 
observance  is  enforced  by  this  very  consideration ;  for 
we  read  (vv.  43,  44) :  '*  Ye  shall  not  make  yourselves 
abominable  with  any  creeping  thing  that  creepeth, 
neither  shall  ye  make  yourselves  unclean  with  them, 
that  ye  should  be  defiled  thereby.  For  I  am  the  Lord 
your  God  :  sanctify  yourselves  therefore,  and  be  ye 
holy ;  for  I  am  holy."  And,  in  any  case,  explain  the 
matter  as  we  may,  many  will  ask,  How,  since  the  New 
Testament  formally  declares  this  law  concerning  clean 
and  unclean  beasts  to  be  no  longer  binding  (Col.  ii.  16, 
20-23),  is  it  possible  to  imagine  that  there  should 
now  remain  anything  in  this  most  perplexing  law 
which  should  be  of  spiritual  profit  still  to  a  New 
Testament  believer  ?  To  the  consideration  of  these 
questions,  which  so  naturally  arise,  we  now  address 
ourselves. 

First  of  all,  in  approaching  this  subject  it  is  well  to 
recall  to  mind  the  undeniable  fact,  that  a  distinction  in 
foods  as  clean  and  unclean,  that  is,  fit  and  unfit  for 
man's  use,  has  a  very  deep  and  apparently  irremovable 


282  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

foundation  in  man's  nature.  Even  we  ourselves,  who 
stumble  at  this  law,  recognise  a  distinction  of  this  kind, 
and  regulate  our  diet  accordingly;  and  also,  in  like 
manner,  feel,  more  or  less,  an  instinctive  repugnance  to 
dead  bodies.  As  regards  diet,  it  is  true  that  when  the 
secondary  question  arises  as  to  what  particular  animals 
shall  be  reckoned  clean  or  unclean,  fit  or  unfit  for  food, 
nations  and  tribes  differ  among  themselves,  as  also 
from  the  law  of  Moses,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree ; 
nevertheless,  this  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  such  a 
distinction  is  recognised  among  all  nations  of  culture ; 
and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  in  those  who  recognise 
it  not,  and  who  eat,  as  some  do,  without  discrimination, 
whatever  chances  to  come  to  hand, — insects,  reptiles, 
carrion,  and  so  on, — this  revolting  indifference  in  the 
matter  of  food  is  always  associated  with  gross 
intellectual  and  moral  degradation.  Certainly  these 
indisputable  facts  should  suffice  to  dispose  of  the 
charge  of  puerility,  as  sometimes  made  against  the 
laws  of  this  chapter. 

And  not  only  this,  but  more  is  true.  For  while  even 
among  nations  of  the  highest  culture  and  Christian 
enlightenment  many  animals  are  eaten,  as,  e.g.y  the 
oyster,  the  turtle,  the  flesh  of  the  horse  and  the  hog, 
which  the  law  of  Moses  prohibits ;  on  the  other  hand, 
it  remains  true  that,  with  the  sole  exception  of  creatures 
of  the  locust  tribe,  the  animals  which  are  allowed  for 
food  by  the  Mosaic  code  are  reckoned  suitable  for 
food  by  almost  the  entire  human  family.  A  notable 
exception  to  the  fact  is  indeed  furnished  in  the  case 
of  the  Hindoos,  and  also  the  Buddhists  (who  follow  an 
Indian  religion),  who,  as  a  rule,  reject  all  animal  food, 
and  especially,  in  the  case  of  the  former,  the  flesh  of  the 
cow,  as  not  to  be  eaten.     But  this  exception  is  quite 


XI.  1-47.]  CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  283 

explicable  by  considerations  into  which  we  cannot  here 
enter  at  length,  but  which  do  not  affect  the  significance 
of  the  general  fact. 

And,  again,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  also  be  said 
that,  as  a  general  rule,  the  appetite  of  the  great 
majority  of  enlightened  and  cultivated  nations  revolts 
against  using  as  food  the  greater  part  of  the  animals 
which  this  code  prohibits.  Birds  of  prey,  for  instance, 
and  the  carnivora  generally,  animals  having  paws,  and 
reptiles,  for  the  most  part,  by  a  kind  of  universal 
instinct  among  cultivated  peoples,  are  judged  unfit  for 
human  food. 

The  bearing  of  these  facts  upon  our  exposition  is 
plain.  They  certainly  suggest,  at  least,  that  this  law 
of  Lev.  xi.  may,  after  all,  very  possibly  have  a  deep 
foundation  both  in  the  nature  of  man  and  that  of  the 
things  permitted  or  forbidden ;  and  they  also  raise 
the  question  as  to  how  far  exceptions  and  diverg- 
encies from. this  law,  among  peoples  of  culture,  may 
possibly  be  due  to  a  diversity  in  external  physical  and 
climatic  conditions,  because  of  which  that  which  may 
be  wholesome  and  suitable  food  in  one  place — the  wil- 
derness of  Sinai,  or  Palestine,  for  instance — may  not 
be  wholesome  and  suitable  in  other  lands,  under  dif- 
ferent physical  conditions.  We  do  not  yet  enter  into 
this  question,  but  barely  call  attention  to  it,  as  adapted 
to  check  the  hasty  judgment  of  many,  that  such  a  law 
as  this  is  necessarily  puerile  and  unworthy  of  God. 

But  while  it  is  of  no  small  consequence  to  note  this 
agreement  in  the  fundamental  ideas  of  this  law  with 
widely  extended  instincts  and  habits  of  mankind,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  also  of  importance  to  emphasise 
the  contrast  which  it  exhibits  with  similar  codes  of 
law  among  other  peoples.     For  while,  as  has  just  been 


284  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


remarked,    there    are    many    most    suggestive    points 
of  agreement  between  the  Mosaic  distinctions  of  clean 
and  unclean  and  those  of  other  nations,  on  the  other 
hand,  remarkable  contrasts  appear,  even  in    the  case 
of  those  people  with  whom,  like   the  Egyptians,  the 
Hebrews   had   been   most   intimately   associated.      In 
the  Egyptian  system  of  dietary  law,  for  instance,  the 
distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  in  food  was  made  to 
apply,  not  only  in  the  animal,  but  also  in  the  vegetable 
world ;   and,   again,  while  all  fishes  having   fins  and 
scales   are   permitted  as  food  in  the  Mosaic  law,  no 
fishes  whatever  are  permitted  by  the   Egyptian   code. 
But  more  significant  than  such  difference  in  details  is 
the  difference  in  the  reHgious  conception  upon  which 
such  distinctions  are  based.     In  Egypt,  for  example, 
animals  were  reckoned  clean  or  unclean  according  as 
they  were   supposed  to   have    more    predominant    the 
character   of  the  good  Osiris  or  of  the  evil  Typhon. 
Among   the   ancient   Persians,    those    were    reckoned 
clean   which   were   supposed   to    be    the    creation    of 
Ormazd,  the  good    Spirit,   and    those    unclean    whose 
origin  was  attributed  to  Ahriman,  the  evil  Spirit.     In 
India,  the  prohibition  of  flesh  as  food  rests  on  pan- 
theistic assumptions.     Not  to  multiply  examples,  it  is 
easy  to  see  that,  without   anticipating  anything  here 
with    regard    to  the    principle    which    determined    the 
Hebrew  distinctions,  it  is  certain  that  of  such  dualistic 
or  pantheistic  principles  as   are   manifested   in   these 
and  other  instances  which  might  be  named,  there  is  not 
a  trace  in  the  Mosaic  law.     How  significant  and  pro- 
foundly instructive  is  the  contrast  here,  will  only  fully 
appear  when  we  see  what  in  fact  appears  to  have  been 
the  determining  principle  in  the  Mosaic  legislation. 
But   when   we   now   seek  to   ascertain   upon  what 


xi.i-47.]  CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  285 

principle  certain  animals  were  permitted  and  others 
forbidden  as  food,  it  must  be  confessed  that  we  have 
before  us  a  very  difficult  question,  and  one  to  which, 
accordingly,  very  diverse  answers  have  been  given. 
In  general,  indeed,  we  are  expressly  told  that  the 
object  of  this  legislation,  as  of  all  else  in  this  book  of 
laws,  was  moral  and  spiritual.  Thus,  we  are  told  in 
so  many  words  (vv.  43-45)  that  Israel  was  to  abstain 
from  eating  or  touching  the  unclean,  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  to  be  holy,  because  the  Lord  their  God 
was  holy.  But  to  most  this  only  increases  the  diffi- 
culty. What  possible  connection  could  there  be 
between  eating,  or  abstinence  from  eating,  animals 
which  do  not  chew  the  cud,  or  fishes  which  have  not 
scales,  and  hoHness  of  life? 

In  answer  to  this  question,  some  have  supposed  a 
mystical  connection  between  the  soul  and  the  body, 
such  that  the  former  is  defiled  by  the  food  which  is 
received  and  assimilated  by  the  latter.  In  support  of 
this  theory,  appeal  has  been  made  to  ver.  44  of  this 
chapter,  which,  in  the  Septuagint  translation,  is  ren- 
dered literally  :  ^'  Ye  shall  not  defile  your  souls."  But, 
as  often  in  Hebrew,  the  original  expression  here  is 
simply  equivalent  to  our  compound  pronoun  '^  your- 
selves," and  is  therefore  so  translated  both  in  the 
Authorised  and  the  Revised  Versions.  As  for  any 
other  proof  of  such  a  mystical  evil  influence  of  the 
various  kinds  of  food  prohibited  in  this  chapter,  there 
is  simply  none  at  all. 

Others,  again,  have  sought  the  explication  of  these 
facts  in  the  undoubted  Divine  purpose  of  keeping 
Israel  separate  from  other  nations ;  to  secure  which 
separation  this  special  dietetic  code,  with  other  laws 
regarding  the  clean  and  the  unclean,  was  given  them. 


286  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


That  these  laws  have  practically  helped  to  keep  the 
children  of  Israel  separate  from  other  nations,  will  not 
be  denied ;  and  we  may  therefore  readily  admit,  that  in- 
asmuch as  the  food  of  the  Hebrews  has  differed  from 
that  of  the  nations  among  whom  they  have  dwelt,  this 
separation  of  the  nation  may  therefore  have  been 
included  in  the  purpose  of  God  in  these  regulations. 
However,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  the  law  itself  the 
separation  of  Israel  from  other  nations  is  represented, 
not  as  the  end  to  be  attained  by  the  observance  of  these 
food  laws,  but  instead,  as  a  fact  already  existing,  which 
is  given  as  a  reason  why  they  should  keep  these  laws 
(xx.  24,  25).  Moreover,  it  will  be  found  impossible, 
by  reference  to  this  principle  alone,  to  account  for  the 
details  of  the  laws  before  us.  For  the  question  is  not 
merely  why  there  should  have  been  food  laws,  but 
also  why  these  laws  should  have  been  such  as  they 
are  ?  The  latter  question  is  not  adequately  explained 
by  reference  to  God's  purpose  of  keeping  Israel  separate 
from  the  nations. 

Some,  again,  have  held  that  the  explanation  of  these 
laws  was  to  be  found  simply  in  the  design  of  God,  by 
these  restrictions,  to  give  Israel  a  profitable  moral 
discipline  in  self-restraint  and  control  of  the  bodily 
appetites  ;  or  to  impose,  in  this  way,  certain  conditions 
and  limitations  upon  their  approach  to  Him,  which 
should  have  the  effect  of  deepening  in  them  the  sense 
of  awe  and  reverence  for  the  Divine  majesty  of  God,  as 
their  King.  Of  this  theory  it  may  be  said,  as  of  the 
last-named,  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  fact 
these  laws  did  tend  to  secure  these  ends  ;  but  that  yet, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  explanation  is  still  inadequate, 
inasmuch  as  it  only  would  show  why  restrictions  of 
some  kind  should  have  been  ordered,  and  not,  in  the 


1-47.]  CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  287 


least,  why  the  restrictions  should  have  been  such,  in 
detail,  as  we  have  here. 

Quite  different  from  any  of  these  attempted  explana- 
tions is  that  of  many  who  have  sought  to  explain  the 
law  allegorically.  We  are  told  by  such  that  Israel  was 
forbidden  the  flesh  of  certain  animals,  because  they  were 
regarded  as  typifying  by  their  character  certain  sins  and 
vices,  as,  on  the  other  hand,  those  which  were  permitted 
as  food  were  regarded  as  typifying  certain  moral  virtues. 
Hence,  it  is  supposed  by  such  that  the  law  tended  to 
the  holiness  of  Israel,  in  that  it  was,  so  to  speak,  a  con- 
tinual object-lesson,  a  perpetually  acted  allegory,  which 
should  continually  remind  them  of  the  duty  of  abstain- 
ing from  the  typified  sins  and  of  practising  the  typified 
virtues.  But,  assuredly,  this  theory  cannot  be  carried 
out.  Animals  are  in  this  law  prohibited  as  food  whose 
symbolic  meaning  elsewhere  in  Scripture  is  not  always 
bad,  but  sometimes  good.  The  lion,  for  example,  as 
having  paws,  is  prohibited  as  food ;  and  yet  it  is  the 
symbol  of  our  blessed  Lord,  *'the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah."  Nor  is  there  the  slightest  evidence  that  the 
Hebrews  ever  attached  any  such  allegorical  significance 
to  the  various  prescriptions  of  this  chapter  as  the  theory 
would  require. 

Other  expositors  allegorise  in  a  different  but  no  more 
satisfactory  manner.  Thus  a  popular,  and,  it  must  be 
added,  most  spiritual  and  devout  expositor,  sets  forth 
the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  required  conjunction  of  the 
two  marks  in  clean  animals  of  the  chewing  of  the  cud 
and  the  dividing  of  the  hoof  in  this  wise :  "  The  two 
things  were  inseparable  in  the  case  of  every  clean 
animal.  And,  as  to  the  spiritual  application,  it  is  of  the 
very  last  importance  in  a  practical  point  of  view.  .  .  . 
A  man  may  profess  to  love  and  feed  upon,  to  study 


288  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

and  ruminate  over,  the  Word  of  God — the  pasture  of 
the  soul ;  but  if  his  footprints  along  the  pathway  of  life 
are  not  such  as  the  Word  requires,  he  is  not  clean." 

But  it  should  be  evident  that  such  allegorising  inter- 
pretation as  this  can  carry  with  it  no  authority,  and 
sets  the  door  wide  open  to  the  most  extravagant  fancy 
in  the  exposition  of  Scripture. 

Others,  again,  find  the  only  principle  which  has 
determined  the  laws  concerning  defilement  by  the  dead, 
and  the  clean  and  unclean  meats,  to  be  the  presence 
in  that  which  was  reckoned  unclean,  of  something  which 
is  naturally  repulsive  to  men ;  whether  in  odour,  or  in 
the  food  of  a  creature,  or  its  other  habits  of  life.  But 
while  it  is  true  that  such  marks  distinguish  many  of  the 
creatures  reckoned  unclean,  they  are  wanting  in  others, 
and  are  also  found  in  a  few  animals  which  are  never- 
theless permitted.  If  this  had  been  the  determining 
principle,  surely,  for  example,  the  law  which  permitted 
for  food  the  he-goat  and  forbade  the  horse,  would  have 
been  exactly  the  opposite ;  while,  as  regards  fishes  and 
insects  permitted  and  forbidden,  it  is  hard  to  see  any 
evidence  whatever  of  the  influence  of  this  principle. 

Much  more  plausible,  at  first  sight,  and  indeed  much 
more  nearly  approaching  the  truth,  than  any  of  the 
theories  above  criticised,  is  one  which  has  been 
elaborated  with  no  little  learning  and  ingenuity  by 
Sommer,^  according  to  which  the  laws  concerning  the 
clean  and  the  unclean,  whether  in  regard  to  food  or 
anything  else,  are  all  grounded  in  the  antithesis  of  death 
and  life.  Death,  everywhere  in  Holy  Scripture,  is  set 
in  the  closest  ethical  and  symbolical  connection  with 
sin.     Bodily  death  is  the  wages  of  sin ;  and  inasmuch 


*  "Biblische  Abhandlungen,"  pp.  239-270. 


xi.  1-47.]        CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  289 


as  it  is  the  outward  physical  expression  and  result  of 
the  inner  fact  that  sin,  in  its  very  nature,  is  spiritual 
death,  therefore  the  dead  is  always  held  to  be  unclean ; 
and  the  various  laws  enforcing  this  thought  are  all 
intended  to  keep  before  the  mind  the  fact  that  death  is 
the  visible  representation  and  evidence  of  the  presence 
of  sin,  and  the  consequent  curse  of  God.  Hence,  also, 
it  will  follow  that  the  selection  of  foods  must  be 
governed  by  a  reference  to  this  principle.  The 
carnivora,  on  this  principle,  must  be  forbidden, — as 
they  are, — because  they  live  by  taking  the  life  of  other 
animals;  hence,  also,  is  explained  the  exclusion  of 
the  multitudinous  varieties  of  the  insect  world,  as 
feeding  on  that  which  is  dead  and  corrupt.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  animals  which  chew  the  cud  and 
divide  the  hoof  are  counted  clean ;  inasmuch  as  the 
sheep  and  the  cattle,  the  chief  representatives  of  this 
class,  were  by  every  one  recognised  as  at  the  furthest 
possible  remove  from  any  such  connection  with  death 
and  corruption  in  their  mode  of  life ;  and  hence  the 
familiar  marks  which  distinguish  them,  as  a  matter 
merely  of  practical  convenience,  were  taken  as  those 
which  must  distinguish  every  animal  lawful  for  food. 

But  while  this  view  has  been  elaborated  with  great 
ability  and  skill,  it  yet  fails  to  account  for  all  the  facts. 
It  is  quite  overlooked  that  if  the  reason  of  the  prohibi- 
tion of  carnivorous  birds  and  quadrupeds  is  to  be  found 
in  the  fact  that  they  live  by  the  destruction  of  life,  the 
same  reason  should  have  led  to  the  prohibition  of  all 
fishes  without  exception,  as  in  Egypt ;  inasmuch  as 
those  which  have  fins  and  scales,  no  less  than  others, 
live  by  preying  on  other  living  creatures.  On  the  other 
hand,  by  the  same  principle,  all  insects  which  derive 
their  sustenance  from  the  vegetable  world  should  have 

19 


290  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

been  permitted  as  food,  instead  of  one  order  only  of 
these. 

Where  so  much  learning  and  profound  thought  has 
been  expended  in  vain,  one  might  well  hesitate  to 
venture  anything  in  exposition  of  so  difficult  a  subject, 
and  rest  content,  as  some  have,  with  declaring  that  the 
whole  subject  is  utterly  inexplicable.  And  yet  the 
world  advances  in  knowledge,  and  we  are  therefore 
able  to  approach  the  subject  with  some  advantage  in 
this  respect  over  earlier  generations.  And  in  the  light 
of  the  most  recent  investigations,  we  believe  it  highly 
probable  that  the  chief  principle  determining  the  laws 
of  this  chapter  will  be  found  in  the  region  of  hygiene 
and  sanitation,  as  relating,  in  this  instance,  to  diet,  and 
to  the  treatment  of  that  which  is  dead.  And  this  in 
view  of  the  following  considerations. 

It  is  of  much  significance  to  note,  in  the  first  place, 
that  a  large  part  of  the  animals  which  are  forbidden  as 
food  are  unclean  feeders.  It  is  a  well-ascertained  fact 
that  even  the  cleanest  animal,  if  its  food  be  unclean, 
becomes  dangerous  to  health  if  its  flesh  be  eaten.  The 
flesh  of  a  cow  which  has  drunk  water  contaminated 
with  typhoid  germs,  if  eaten,  especially  if  insufficiently 
cooked,  may  communicate  typhoid  fever  to  him  who 
eats  it.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  not  all  animals  that 
are  prohibited  are  unclean  in  their  food ;  but  the  fact 
remains  that,  on  the  other  hand,  among  those  which 
are  allowed  is  to  be  found  no  animal  whose  ordinary 
habits  of  life,  especially  in  respect  of  food,  are  unclean. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  an  animal  which  is  not 
unclean  in  its  habits  may  yet  be  dangerous  for  food, 
if  it  be,  for  any  reason,  specially  liable  to  disease. 
One  of  the  greatest  discoveries  of  modern  science  is 
the   fact   that  a   large  number  of  diseases   to  which 


xi.  1-47.]        CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  291 

animals  are  liable  are  due  to  the  presence  of  low  forms 
of  parasitic  life.  To  such  diseases  those  which  are 
unclean  in  their  feeding  will  be  especially  exposed, 
while  none  will  perhaps  be  found  wholly  exempt. 

Another  discovery  of  recent  times  which  has  a  no 
less  important  bearing  on  the  question  raised  by  this 
chapter  is  the  now  ascertained  fact  that  many  of  these 
parasitic  diseases  are  common  to  both  animals  and 
men,  and  may  be  communicated  from  the  former  to 
the  latter.  All  are  familiar  with  the  fact  that  the  small- 
pox, in  a  modified  and  mild  form,  is  a  disease  of  cattle 
as  well  as  of  men,  and  we  avail  ourselves  of  this  fact 
in  the  practice  of  vaccination.  Scarcely  less  familiar 
is  the  communication  of  the  parasitic  trichinae,  which 
often  infest  the  flesh  of  swine,  to  those  who  eat  such 
meat.  And  research  is  constantly  extending  the  num- 
ber of  such  diseases.  Turkeys,  we  are  now  told,  have  the 
diphtheria,  and  may  communicate  it  to  men ;  men  also 
sometimes  take  from  horses  the  loathsome  disease 
known  as  the  glanders.  Now  in  the  light  of  such 
facts  as  these,  it  is  plain  that  an  ideal  dietary  law 
would,  as  far  as  possible,  exclude  from  human  food 
all  animals  which,  under  given  conditions,  might  be 
especially  liable  to  these  parasitic  diseases,  and  which, 
if  their  flesh  should  be  eaten,  might  thus  become  a 
frequent  medium  of  communicating  them  to  men. 

Now  it  is  a  most  remarkable  and  significant  fact 
that  the  tendency  of  the  most  recent  investigations  of 
this  subject  has  been  to  show  that  the  prohibitions  and 
permissions  of  the  Mosaic  law  concerning  food,  as  we 
have  them  in  this  chapter,  become  apparently  explic- 
able in  view  of  the  above  facts.  Not  to  refer  to  other 
authorities,  among  the  latest  competent  testimonies  on 
this  subject  is  that  of  Dr.  Noel  Gueneau  de  Mussy,  in 


292  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

a  paper  presented  to  the  Paris  Academy  of  Medicine 
in  1885,  in  which  he  is  quoted  as  saying:  *' There  is 
so  close  a  connection  between  the  thinking  being  and 
the  living  organism  in  man,  so  intimate  a  solidarity 
between  moral  and  material  interests,  and  the  useful 
is  so  constantly  and  so  necessarily  in  harmony  with 
the  good,  that  these  two  elements  cannot  be  separated 
in  hygiene.  ...  It  is  this  combination  which  has 
exercised  so  great  an  influence  on  the  preservation  of 
the  Israelites,  despite  the  very  unfavourable  external 
circumstances  in  which  they  have  been  placed.  .  .  .  The 
idea  of  parasitic  and  infectious  maladies,  which  has 
conquered  so  great  a  position  in  modern  pathology, 
appears  to  have  greatly  occupied  the  mind  of  Moses, 
and  to  have  dominated  all  his  hygienic  rules.  He 
excludes  from  Hebrew  dietary  animals  particularly 
Hable  to  parasites;  and  as  it  is  in  the  blood  that  the 
germs  or  spores  of  infectious  disease  circulate,  he 
orders  that  they  must  be  drained  of  their  blood  before 
serving  for  food." 

If  this  professional  testimony,  which  is  accepted  and 
endorsed  by  Dr.  Behrends,  of  London,  in  his  remarkable 
paper  on  ''  Diseases  caught  from  Butcher's  Meat,"  ^  be 
admitted,  it  is  evident  that  we  need  look  no  further  for 
the  explanation  of  the  minute  prescriptions  of  these 
dietary  laws  which  we  find  here  and  elsewhere  in  the 
Pentateuch. 

And,  it  may  be  added,  that  upon  this  principle  we 
may  also  easily  explain,  in  a  rational  way,  the  very 
minute  prescriptions  of  the  law  with  regard  to  defilement 
by  dead  bodies.  For  immediately  upon  death  begins  a 
process  of  corruption  which  produces  compounds  not 

'  In  The  Nineteenth  Century,  September,  1889. 


xi.i-47.]        CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  293 

only  obnoxious  to  the  senses,  but  actively  poisonous  in 
character;  and  what  is  of  still  more  consequence  to 
observe,  in  the  case  of  all  parasitic  and  infectious 
diseases,  the  energy  of  the  infection  is  specially  intensi- 
fied when  the  infected  person  or  animal  dies.  Hence 
the  careful  regulations  as  to  cleansing  of  those  persons 
or  things  which  had  been  thus  defiled  by  the  dead ; 
either  by  water,  where  practicable ;  or  where  the  thing 
could  not  be  thus  thoroughly  cleansed,  then  by  burn- 
ing the  article  with  fire,  the  most  certain  of  all  dis- 
infectants. 

But  if  this  be  indeed  the  principle  which  underlies 
this  law  of  the  clean  and  the  unclean  as  here  given,  it 
will  then  be  urged  that  since  the  Hebrews  have  observed 
this  law  with  strictness  for  centuries,  they  ought  to 
show  the  evidence  of  this  in  a  marked  immunity  from 
sickness,  as  compared  with  other  nations,  and  especially 
from  diseases  of  an  infectious  character ;  and  a  conse- 
quent longevity  superior  to  that  of  the  Gentiles  who 
pay  no  attention  to  these  laws.  Now  it  is  the  fact,  and 
one  v/hich  evidently  furnishes  another  powerful  argu- 
ment for  this  interpretation  of  these  laws,  that  this  is 
exactly  what  we  see.  In  this  matter  we  are  not  left  to 
guessing ;  the  facts  are  before  the  world,  and  are  undis- 
puted. Even  so  long  ago  as  the  days  when  the  plague 
was  desolating  Europe,  the  Jews  so  universally  escaped 
infection  that,  by  this  their  exemption,  the  popular 
suspicion  was  excited  into  fury,  and  they  were  accused 
of  causing  the  fearful  mortality  among  their  Gentile 
neighbours  by  poisoning  the  wells  and  springs.  In  our 
own  day,  in  the  recent  cholera  epidemic  in  Italy,  a 
correspondent  of  the  Jewish  Chronicle  testifies  that  the 
Jews  enjoyed  almost  absolute  immunity,  at  least  from 
fatal  attack. 


294  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

Professor  Hosmer  says :  "  Throughout  the  entire 
history  of  Israel,  the  wisdom  of  the  ancient  lawgivers 
in  these  respects  has  been  remarkably  shown.  In  times 
of  pestilence  the  Jews  have  suffered  far  less  than  others  ; 
as  regards  longevity  and  general  health,  they  have  in 
every  age  been  noteworthy,  and,  at  the  present  day, 
in  the  life-insurance  offices,  the  life  of  a  Jew  is  said 
to  be  worth  much  more  than  that  of  men  of  other 
stock." 

Of  the  facts  in  the  modern  world  which  sustain  these 
statements.  Dr.  Behrends  gives  abundant  illustration  in 
the  article  referred  to,  such  as  the  following :  "  In 
Prussia,  the  mean  duration  of  Jewish  life  averages  five 
years  more  than  that  of  the  general  population.  In 
Furth,  the  average  duration  of  Jewish  life  is  37,  and  of 
Christians  26  years.  In  Hungary,  an  exhaustive  study 
of  the  facts  shows  that  the  average  duration  of  life  with 
the  Croats  is  20*2,  of  the  Germans  26*7,  but  of  the 
Jews  46*5  years,  and  that  although  the  latter  generally 
are  poor,  and  live  under  much  more  unfavourable 
sanitary  conditions  than  their  Gentile  neighbours." 

In  the  light  of  such  well-certified  facts,  the  conclusion 
seems  certainly  to  be  warranted,  that  at  least  one  chief 
consideration  which,  in  the  Divine  wisdom,  determined 
the  allowance  or  prohibition,  as  the  food  of  Israel,  of  the 
animals  named  in  this  chapter,  has  been  their  fitness 
or  unfitness  as  diet  from  a  hygienic  point  of  view, 
especially  regarding  their  greater  or  less  liability  to 
have,  and  to  communicate  to  man,  infectious,  parasitic 
diseases. 

From  this  position,  if  it  be  justified,  we  can  now 
perceive  a  secondary  reference  in  these  laws  to  the 
deeper  ethical  truth  which,  with  much  reason,  Sommer 
has  so  emphasised ;  namely,  the  moral  significance  of 


xi.i-47.]        CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  295 

the  great  antithesis  of  death  to  Hfe ;  the  former  being 
ever  contrasted  in  Holy  Scripture  with  the  latter,  as  the 
visible  manifestation  of  the  presence  of  sin  in  the  world, 
and  of  the  consequent  curse  of  God.  For  whatever 
tends  to  weakness  or  disease,  by  that  fact  tends  to 
death, — to  that  death  which,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
is,  for  man,  the  penal  consequence  of  sin.  But  Israel 
was  called  to  be  a  people  redeemed  from  the  power  of 
death  to  life,  a  life  of  full  consecration  to  God.  Hence, 
because  redeemed  from  death,  it  was  evidently  fitting 
that  the  Israelite  should,  so  far  as  possible  in  the  flesh, 
keep  apart  from  death,  and  all  that  in  its  nature  tended, 
or  might  specially  tend,  to  disease  and  death. 

It  is  very  strange  that  it  should  have  been  objected 
to  this  view,  that  since  the  law  declares  the  reason  for 
these  regulations  to  have  been  religious,  therefore  any 
supposed  reference  herein  to  the  principles  of  hygiene 
is  by  that  fact  excluded.  For  surely  the  obligation  so 
to  live  as  to  conserve  and  promote  the  highest  bodily 
health  must  be  regarded,  both  from  a  natural,  and 
a  Biblical  and  Christian  point  of  view,  as  being  no 
less  really  a  religious  obligation  than  truthfulness  or 
honesty.  If  there  appear  sufficient  reason  for  believing 
that  the  details  of  these  laws  are  to  be  explained  by 
reference  to  hygienic  considerations,  surely  this,  so  far 
from  contradicting  the  reason  which  is  given  for  their 
observance,  helps  us  rather  the  more  clearly  to  see 
how,  just  because  Israel  was  called  to  be  the  holy 
people  of  a  holy  God,  they  must  needs  keep  this  law. 
For  the  central  idea  of  the  Levitical  holiness  was  con- 
secration unto  God,  as  the  Creator  and  Redeemer  of 
Israel, — consecration  in  the  most  unreserved,  fullest 
possible  sense,  for  the  most  perfect  possible  service. 
But   the   obligation   to    such   a   consecration,   as    the 


296  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

essence  of  a  holy  character,  surely  carried  with  it,  by 
necessary  consequence,  then,  as  now,  the  obhgation 
to  maintain  all  the  powers  of  mind  and  body  also  in 
the  highest  possible  perfection.  That,  as  regards  the 
body,  and,  in  no  small  degree,  the  mind  as  well,  this 
involves  the  duty  of  the  preservation  of  health,  so  far 
as  in  our  power ;  and  that  this,  again,  is  conditioned 
by  the  use  of  a  proper  diet,  as  one  factor  of  prime 
importance,  will  be  denied  by  no  one.  If,  then,  suffi- 
cient reason  can  be  shown  for  recognising  the  deter- 
mining influence  of  hygienic  considerations  in  the  laws 
of  this  chapter  concerning  the  clean  and  the  unclean, 
this  fact  will  only  be  in  the  fullest  harmony  with  all 
that  is  said  in  this  connection,  and  elsewhere  in  the 
law,  as  to  the  relation  of  their  observance  to  Israel's 
holiness  as  a  consecrated  nation. 

It  may  very  possibly  be  asked,  by  way  of  further 
objection  to  this  interpretation  of  these  laws :  Upon  this 
understanding  of  the  immediate  purpose  of  these  laws, 
how  can  we  account  for  the  selection  of  such  test 
marks  of  the  clean  and  the  unclean  as  the  chewing  of 
the  cud,  and  the  dividing  of  the  hoof,  or  having  scales 
and  fins  ?  What  can  the  presence  or  absence  of  these 
peculiarities  have  to  do  with  the  greater  or  less  free- 
dom from  parasitic  disease  of  the  animals  included  or 
excluded  in  the  several  classes  ?  To  which  question 
the  answer  may  fairly  be  given,  that  the  object  of  the 
law  was  not  to  give  accurately  distributed  categories  of 
animals,  scientifically  arranged,  according  to  hygienic 
principles,  but  was  purely  practical ;  namely,  to  secure, 
so  far  as  possible,  the  observance  by  the  whole  people 
of  such  a  dietary  as  in  the  land  of  Palestine  would,  on 
the  whole,  best  tend  to  secure  perfect  bodily  health. 
It  is  not  affirmed  that  every  individual  animal  which  by 


xi.  1-47.]        CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  297 


these  tests  may  be  excluded  from  permitted  food  is 
therefore  to  be  held  specially  liable  to  disease ;  but 
only  that  the  limitation  of  the  diet  by  these  test  marks, 
as  a  practical  measure,  would,  on  the  whole,  secure  the 
greatest  degree  of  immunity  from  disease  to  those  who 
kept  the  law. 

It  may  be  objected,  again,  by  some  who  have  looked 
into  this  question,  that,  according  to  recent  researches, 
it  appears  that  cattle,  which  occupy  the  foremost  place 
in  the  permitted  diet  of  the  Hebrews,  are  found  to 
be  especially  liable  to  tubercular  disease,  and  capable, 
apparently,  under  certain  conditions,  of  communicating 
it  to  those  who  feed  upon  their  flesh.  And  it  has  been 
even  urged  that  to  this  source  is  due  a  large  part  of 
the  consumption  which  is  responsible  for  so  large  part 
of  our  mortality.  To  which  objection  two  answers 
may  be  given.  First,  and  most  important,  is  the 
observation  that  we  have  as  yet  no  statistics  as  to 
the  prevalence  of  disease  of  this  kind  among  cattle  in 
Palestine  ;  and  that,  presumably,  if  we  may  argue  from 
the  climatic  conditions  of  its  prevalence  among  men,  it 
would  be  found  far  less  frequently  there  among  cattle 
than  in  Europe  and  America.  Further,  it  must  be 
remembered  that,  in  the  case  even  of  clean  cattle,  the 
law  very  strictly  provides  elsewhere  that  the  clean 
animal  which  is  slain  for  food  shall  be  absolutely  free 
from  disease ;  so  that  still  we  see  here,  no  less  than 
elsewhere,  the  hygienic  principles  ruling  the  dietary 
law. 

It  will  be  perhaps  objected,  again,  that  if  all  this  be 
true,  then,  since  abstinence  from  unwholesome  food  is 
a  moral  duty,  the  law  concerning  clean  and  unclean 
meats  should  be  of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation ; 
whereas,  in  fact,  it  is  explicitly  abrogated  in  the  New 


298  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS, 

Testament,  and  is  not  held  to  be  now  binding  on  any 
one.  But  the  abrogation  of  the  law  of  Moses  touching 
clean  and  unclean  food  can  be  easily  explained,  in 
perfect  accord  with  all  that  has  been  said  as  to  its 
nature  and  intent.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  it  is  a  fundamental  characteristic  of 
the  New  Testament  law  as  contrasted  with  that  of 
the  Old,  that  on  all  points  it  leaves  much  more  to  the 
liberty  of  the  individual,  allowing  him  to  act  according 
to  the  exercise  of  an  enlightened  judgment,  under  the 
law  of  supreme  love  to  the  Lord,  in  many  matters 
which,  in  the  Old  Testament  day,  were  made  a  subject  of 
specific  regulation.  This  is  true,  for  instance,  regarding 
all  that  relates  to  the  public  worship  of  God,  and  also 
many  things  in  the  government  and  administration  of 
the  Church,  not  to  speak  of  other  examples.  This 
does  not  indeed  mean  that  it  is  of  no  consequence  what 
a  man  or  a  Church  may  do  in  matters  of  this  kind  ;  but 
it  is  intended  thus  to  give  the  individual  and  the  whole 
Church  a  discipline  of  a  higher  order  than  is  possible 
under  a  system  which  prescribes  a  large  part  of  the 
details  of  human  action.  Subjection  to  these  "rudi- 
ments "  of  the  law,  according  to  the  Apostle,  belongs 
to  a  condition  of  religious  minority  (Gal.  iv.  1-3),  and 
passes  away  when  the  individual,  or  the  Church,  so  to 
speak,  attains  majority.  Precisely  so  it  is  in  the  case 
of  these  dietary  and  other  laws,  which,  indeed,  are 
selected  by  the  Apostle  Paul  (Col.  ii.  20-22)  in  illustra- 
tion of  this  characteristic  of  the  new  dispensation. 
That  such  matters  of  detail  should  no  longer  be  made 
matter  of  specific  command  is  only  what  we  should 
expect  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  whole  system  of 
Christian  law.  This  is  not,  indeed,  saying  that  it  is  of 
no  consequence  in  a  religious  point  of  view  what  a  man 


xi.  1-47.]        CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  299 

eats ;  whether,  for  instance,  he  eat  carrion  or  not, 
though  this,  which  was  forbidden  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  nowhere  expressly  prohibited  in  the  New. 
But  still,  as  supplying  a  training  of  higher  order,  the 
New  Testament  uniformly  refrains  from  giving  detailed 
commandments  in  matters  of  this  kind. 

But,  aside  from  considerations  of  this  kind,  there 
is  a  specific  reason  why  these  laws  of  Moses  con- 
cerning diet  and  defilement  by  dead  bodies,  if  hygienic 
in  character,  should  not  have  been  made,  in  the  New 
Testament,  of  universal  obligation,  however  excellent 
they  might  be.  For  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  these 
laws  were  delivered  for  a  people  few  in  number,  living 
in  a  small  country,  under  certain  definite  climatic 
conditions.  But  it  is  well  known  that  what  is  un- 
wholesome for  food  in  one  part  of  the  world  may  be, 
and  often  is,  necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  health 
elsewhere.  A  class  of  animals  which  under  the 
climatic  conditions  of  Palestine  may  be  specially  liable 
to  certain  forms  of  parasitic  disease,  under  different 
climatic  conditions  may  be  comparatively  free  from 
them.  Abstinence  from  fat  is  commanded  in  the  law 
of  Moses  (iii.  17),  and  great  moderation  in  this  matter 
is  necessary  to  health  in  hot  climates;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  to  eat  fat  largely  is  necessary  to  life  in  the 
polar  regions.  From  such  facts  as  these  it  would 
follow,  of  necessity,  that  when  the  Church  of  God,  as 
under  the  new  dispensation,  was  now  to  become  a  world- 
wide organisation,  still  to  have  insisted  on  a  dietetic 
law  perfectly  adapted  only  to  Palestine  would  have 
been  to  defeat  the  physical  object,  and  by  consequence 
the  moral  end,  for  which  that  law  was  given.  Under 
these  conditions,  except  a  special  law  were  to  be  given 
for  each  land  and  climate,  there  was*  and  could  be,  if  we 


300  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

have  before  us  the  true  conception  of  the  ground  of 
these  regulations,  no  alternative  but  to  abrogate  the 
law. 

This  exposition  has  been  much  prolonged ;  but  not 
until  we  have  before  us  a  definite  conception  as  to  the 
principle  underlying  these  regulations,  and  the  relation 
of  their  observance  to  the  holiness  of  Israel,  are  we  in 
a  position  to  see  and  appreciate  the  moral  and  spiritual 
lessons  which  they  may  still  have  for  us.  As  it  is,  if 
the  conclusions  to  which  our  exposition  has  conducted 
be  accepted,  such  lessons  lie  clearly  before  us.  While 
we  have  here  a  law  which,  as  to  the  letter,  is  con- 
fessedly abrogated,  and  which  is  supposed  by  the  most 
to  be  utterly  removed  from  any  present-day  use  for 
practical  instruction,  it  is  now  evident  that,  annulled  as 
to  the  letter,  it  is  yet,  as  to  the  spirit  and  intention  of 
it,  in  full  force  and  vital  consequence  to  holiness  of  life 
in  all  ages. 

In  the  first  place,  this  exposition  being  granted,  it 
follows,  as  a  present-day  lesson  of  great  moment,  that 
the  holiness  which  God  requires  has  to  do  with  the 
body  as  well  as  the  soul,  even  with  such  common- 
place matters  as  our  eating  and  drinking.  This  is  so, 
because  the  body  is  the  instrument  and  organ  of  the 
soul,  with  which  it  must  do  all  its  work  on  earth  for 
God,  and  because,  as  such,  the  body,  no  less  than  the 
soul,  has  been  redeemed  unto  God  by  the  blood  of  His 
Son.  There  is,  therefore,  no  religion  in  neglecting  the 
body,  and  ignoring  the  requirements  for  its  health,  as 
ascetics  have  in  all  ages  imagined.  Neither  is  there 
religion  in  pampering,  and  thus  abusing,  the  body,  after 
the  manner  of  the  sensual  in  all  ages.  The  principle 
which  inspires  this  chapter  is  that  which  is  expressed 
in  the     New    Testament    by    the  words  :    ^'  Whether 


xi.  I-47-]        CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  301 

therefore  ye  eat,  or  drink,  or  whatsoever  ye  do,  do 
all  to  the  glory  of  God"  (i  Cor.  x.  31).  If, 
therefore,  a  man  needlessly  eats  such  things,  or  in 
such  a  manner,  as  may  be  injurious  to  health,  he  sins, 
and  has  come  short  of  the  law  of  perfect  holiness.  It 
is  therefore  not  merely  a  matter  of  earthly  prudence  to 
observe  the  laws  of  health  in  food  and  drink  and 
recreation,  in  a  word,  in  all  that  has  to  do  with  the 
appetite  and  desires  of  the  body,  but  it  is  essential  to 
holiness.  We  are  in  all  these  things  to  seek  to  glorify 
God,  not  only  in  our  souls,  but  also  in  our  bodies. 

The  momentous  importance  of  this  thought  will  the 
more  clearly  appear  when  we  recall  to  mind  that, 
according  to  the  law  of  Moses  (v.  2),  if  a  man  was 
defiled  by  any  unclean  thing,  and  neglected  the 
cleansing  ordered  by  this  law,  even  though  it  were 
through  ignorance  or  forgetfulness,  he  was  held  to 
have  incurred  guilt  before  God.  For  it  was  therein 
declared  that  when  a  man  defiled  by  contact  with  the 
dead,  or  any  unclean  thing,  should  for  any  reason  have 
omitted  the  cleansing  ordered,  his  covenant  relation  with 
God  could  only  be  re-established  on  his  presentation 
of  a  sin-ofiering.  By  parity  of  reasoning  it  follows 
that  the  case  is  the  same  now ;  and  that  God  will  hold 
no  man  guiltless  who  violates  any  of  those  laws  which 
He  has  established  in  nature  as  the  conditions  of  bodily 
health.  He  who  does  this  is  guilty  of  a  sin  which 
requires  the  application  of  the  great  atonement. 

How  needful  it  is  even  in  our  day  to  remind  men  of 
all  this,  could  not  be  better  illustrated  than  by  the 
already  mentioned  argument  of  many  expositors,  that 
hygienic  principles  cannot  have  dominated  and  deter- 
mined the  details  of  these  laws,  because  the  law 
declares  that  they  are  grounded,  not  in  hygiene,  but  in 


302  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

religion,  and  have  to  do  with  hoUness.  As  if  these 
two  were  exclusive,  one  of  the  other,  and  as  if  it 
made  no  difference  in  respect  to  holiness  of  character 
whether  a  man  took  care  to  have  a  sound  body  or 
not! 

No  less  needful  is  the  lesson  of  this  law  to  many 
who  are  at  the  opposite  extreme.  For  as  there  are 
those  who  are  so  taken  up  with  the  soul  and  its  health, 
that  they  ignore  its  relation  to  the  body,  and  the 
bearing  of  bodily  conditions  upon  character ;  so  there 
are  others  who  are  so  preoccupied  with  questions  of 
bodily  health,  sanitation  and  hygiene,  regarded  merely 
as  prudential  measures,  from  an  earthly  point  of  view, 
that  they  forget  that  man  has  a  soul  as  well  as  a 
body,  and  that  such  questions  of  sanitation  and 
hygiene  only  find  their  proper  place  when  it  is 
recognised  that  health  and  perfection  of  the  body  are 
not  to  be  sought  merely  that  man  may  become  a  more 
perfect  animal,  but  in  order  that  thus,  with  a  sound 
mind  in  a  sound  body,  he  may  the  more  perfectly 
serve  the  Lord  in  the  life  of  holiness  to  which  we  are 
called.  Thus  it  appears  that  this  forgotten  law  of 
the  clean  and  the  unclean  in  food,  so  far  from  being, 
at  the  best,  puerile,  and  for  us  now  certainly  quite 
useless,  still  teaches  us  the  very  important  lesson  that 
a  due  regard  to  wholeness  and  health  of  body  is 
essential  to  the  right  and  symmetrical  development 
of  holiness  of  character.  In  every  dispensation,  the 
law  of  God  combines  the  bodily  and  the  spiritual  in 
a  sacred  synthesis.  If  in  the  New  Testament  we  are 
directed  to  glorify  God  in  our  spirits,  we  are  no  less 
explicitly  commanded  to  glorify  God  in  our  bodies 
(i  Cor.  vi.  20).  And  thus  is  given  to  the  laws  of 
health  the  high  sanction  of  the  Divine  obligation  of  the 


xi.  1-47.]        CLEAN  AND   UNCLEAN  ANIMALS.  303 

moral  law,  as  summed  up  in  the  closing  words  of  this 
chapter :  "  Be  ye  holy ;  for  I  am  holy." 

This  law  concerning  things  unclean,  and  clean  and 
unclean  animals,  as  thus  expounded,  is  also  an  apolo- 
getic of  no  small  value.  It  has  a  direct  and  evident 
bearing  on  the  question  of  the  Divine  origin  and 
authority  of  this  part  of  the  law.  For  the  question  will 
at  once  come  up  in  every  reflecting  mind  :  Whence 
came  this  law  ?  Could  it  have  been  merely  an  invention 
of  crafty  Jewish  priests  ?  Or  is  it  possible  to  account 
for  it  as  the  product  merely  of  the  mind  of  Moses  ?  It 
appears  to  have  been  ordered  with  respect  to  certain 
facts,  especially  regarding  various  invisible  forms  of 
noxious  parasitic  life,  in  their  bearing  on  the  causation 
and  propagation  of  disease, — facts  which,  even  now,  are 
but  just  appearing  within  the  horizon  of  modern  science. 
Is  it  probable  that  Moses  knew  about  these  things 
three  thousand  years  ago  ?  Certainly,  the  more  we 
study  the  matter,  the  more  we  must  feel  that  this  is 
not  to  be  supposed. 

It  is  common,  indeed,  to  explain  much  that  seems 
very  wise  in  the  law  of  Moses  by  referring  to  the  fact 
that  he  was  a  highly  educated  man,  *'  instructed  in  all 
the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians."  But  it  is  just  this  fact  of 
his  Egyptian  education  that  makes  it  in  the  last  degree 
improbable  that  he  should  have  derived  the  ideas  of 
this  law  from  Egypt.  Could  he  have  taken  his  ideas 
with  regard,  for  instance,  to  defilement  by  the  dead, 
from  a  system  of  education  which  taught  the  contrary, 
and  which,  so  far  from  regarding  those  who  had  to  do 
with  the  dead  as  unclean,  held  them  especially  sacred  ? 
And  so  with  regard  to  the  dietetic  laws  :  these  are  not 
the  laws  of  Egypt ;  nor  have  we  any  evidence  that 
those  were   determined,  like  these  Hebrew  laws,   by 


304  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

such  scientific  facts  as  those  to  which  we  have  referred.^ 
In  this  day,  when,  at  last,  men  of  all  schools,  and  those 
with  most  scientific  knowledge,  most  of  all,  are  joining 
to  extol  the  exact  wisdom  of  this  ancient  law,  a  wisdom 
which  has  no  parallel  in  like  laws  among  other  nations, 
is  it  not  in  place  to  press  this  question  ?  Whence  had 
this  man  this  unique  wisdom,  three  thousand  years  in 
advance  of  his  times  ?  There  are  many  who  will  feel 
compelled  to  answer,  even  as  Holy  Scripture  answers ; 
even  as  Moses,  according  to  the  record,  answers.  The 
secret  of  this  wisdom  will  be  found,  not  in  the  court 
of  Pharaoh,  but  in  the  holy  tent  of  meeting ;  it  is  all 
explained  if  we  but  assume  that  what  is  written  in  the 
first  verse  of  this  chapter  is  true  :  "  The  Lord  spake 
unto  Moses  and  unto  Aaron." 


See  above,  p.  290-292. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

OF  THE   UNCLEANNESS   OF  ISSUES. 
Lev.  XV.  1-33. 

INASMUCH  as  the  law  concerning  defilement  from 
issues  is  presupposed  and  referred  to  in  that  con- 
cerning the  defilement  of  child-bearing,  in  chap,  xii.,  it 
will  be  well  to  consider  this  before  the  latter.  For  this 
order  there  is  the  more  reason,  because,  as  will  appear, 
although  the  two  sections  are  separated,  in  the  present 
arrangement  of  the  book,  by  the  law  concerning  defile- 
ment by  leprosy  (xiii.,  xiv.),  they  both  refer  to  the  same 
general  topic,  and  are  based  upon  the  same  moral 
conceptions. 

The  arrangement  01  the  law  in  chap.  xv.  is  very 
simple.  Verses  2-18  deal  with  the  cases  of  ceremonial 
defilement  by  issues  in  men  ;  vv.  19-30,  with  analogous 
cases  in  women.  The  principle  in  both  classes  is  one 
and  the  same ;  the  issue,  whether  normal  or  abnormal, 
rendered  the  person  affected  unclean ;  only,  when  ab- 
normal, the  defilement  was  regarded  as  more  serious 
than  in  other  cases,  not  only  in  a  physical,  but  also 
in  a  ceremonial  and  legal  aspect.  In  all  such  cases,  in 
addition  to  the  washing  with  water  which  was  always 
required,  it  was  commanded  that  on  the  eighth  day 
from  the  time  of  the  cessation  of  the  issue,  the  person 
who  had  been  so  affected  should  come  before  the  priest 

20 


306  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

and  present  for  his  cleansing  a  sin-offering  and  a  burnt- 
offering. 

What  now  is  the  principle  which  underlies  these 
regulations  ? 

In  seeking  the  answer  to  this  question,  we  at  once 
note  the  suggestive  fact  that  this  law  concerning  issues 
takes  cognisance  only  of  such  as  are  connected  with 
the  sexual  organisation.  All  others,  however,  in  them- 
selves, from  a  merely  physical  point  of  view,  equally  un- 
wholesome or  loathsome,  are  outside  the  purview  of  the 
Mosaic  code.  They  do  not  render  the  person  affected, 
according  to  the  law,  ceremonially  unclean.  It  is  there- 
fore evident  that  the  lawgiver  must  have  had  before  him 
something  other  than  merely  the  physical  peculiarities 
of  these  defilements,  and  that,  for  the  true  meaning  of 
this  part  of  the  law,  we  must  look  deeper  than  the 
surface.  It  should  also  be  observed  here  that  this 
characteristic  of  the  law  just  mentioned,  places  the  law 
of  issues  under  the  same  general  category  with  the 
law  (chap,  xii.)  concerning  the  uncleanness  of  child- 
bearing,  as  indeed  the  latter  itself  intimates  (xii.  2). 
The  question  thus  arises :  Why  are  these  particular 
cases,  and  such  as  these  only,  regarded  as  ceremonially 
defiling  ? 

To  see  the  reason  of  this,  we  must  recur  to  facts 
which  have  already  come  before  us.  When  our  first 
parents  sinned,  death  was  denounced  against  them  as 
the  penalty  of  their  sin.  Such  had  been  the  threat : 
'*  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  die." 
The  death  denounced  indeed  affected  the  whole  being, 
the  spiritual  as  well  as  the  physical  nature  of  man ;  but 
it  comprehended  the  death  of  the  body,  which  thus 
became,  what  it  still  is,  the  most  impressive  manifesta- 
tion of  the  presence  of  sin  in  every  person  who  dies. 


XV.  1-33]     OF  THE   UNCLEANNESS  OF  ISSUES.  307 

Hence,  as  we  have  seen,  the  law  kept  this  connection 
between  sin  and  death  steadily  before  the  mind,  in  that 
it  constantly  applied  the  principle  that  the  dead  defiles. 
Not  only  so,  but,  for  this  reason,  such  things  as  tended 
to  bring  death  were  also  reckoned  unclean ;  and  thus 
the  regulations  of  the  law  concerning  clean  and  unclean 
meats,  while  strictly  hygienic  in  character,  were  yet 
grounded  in  this  profound  ethical  fact  of  the  connection 
between  sin  and  death ;  had  man  not  sinned,  nothing 
in  the  world  had  been  able  to  bring  in  death,  and  all 
things  had  been  clean.  For  the  same  reason,  again, 
leprosy,  as  exemplifying  in  a  vivid  and  terrible  way 
disease  as  a  progressive  death,  a  living  manifestation 
of  the  presence  of  the  curse  of  God,  and  therefore  of 
the  presence  of  sin,  a  type  of  all  disease,  was  regarded 
as  involving  ceremonial  defilement,  and  therefore  as 
requiring  sacrificial  cleansing. 

But  in  the  curse  denounced  upon  our  first  parents 
was  yet  more.  It  was  specially  taught  that  the  curse 
should  affect  the  generative  power  of  the  race.  For  we 
read  (Gen.  iii.  16)  :  "  Unto  the  woman  He  said,  I  will 
greatly  multiply  thy  sorrow  and  thy  conception  ;  in 
sorrow  thou  shalt  bring  forth  children."  Whatever 
these  words  may  precisely  mean,  it  is  plain  that  they 
are  intended  to  teach  that,  because  of  sin,  the  curse  of 
God  fell  in  some  mysterious  way  upon  the  sexual  organi- 
sation. And  although  the  woman  only  is  specifically 
mentioned,  as  being  "  first  in  the  transgression,"  that 
the  curse  fell  also  upon  the  same  part  of  man's  nature 
is  plain  from  the  words  in  Gen.  v.  3,  where  the  long 
mortuary  record  of  the  antediluvians  is  introduced  by 
the  profoundly  significant  statement  that  Adam  began 
the  long  line,  with  its  inheritance  of  death,  by  begetting 
a  son  '^  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image."     Fallen 


3o8  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

himself  under  the  curse  of  death,  physical  and  spiritual, 
he  therewith  lost  the  capacity  to  beget  a  creature  like 
himself  in  his  original  state,  in  the  image  of  God,  and 
could  only  be  the  means  of  bringing  into  the  world  a 
creature  who  was  an  inheritor  of  physical  weakness 
and  spiritual  and  bodily  death. 

In  the  light  of  this  ancient  record,  which  must  have 
been  before  the  mind  of  the  Hebrew  lawgiver,  we  can 
now  see  why  the  law  concerning  unclean  issues  should 
have  had  special  relation  to  that  part  of  man's  physical 
organisation  which  has  to  do  with  the  propagation  of 
the  race.  Just  as  death  defiled,  because  it  was  a  visible 
representation  of  the  presence  of  the  curse  of  God,  and 
thus  of  sin,  as  the  ground  of  the  curse,  even  so  was  it 
with  all  the  issues  specified  in  this  law.  They  were 
regarded  as  making  a  man  unclean,  because  they  were 
manifestations  of  the  curse  in  a  part  of  man's  nature 
which,  according  to  the  Word  of  God,  sin  has  specially 
affected.  For  this  reason  they  fell  under  the  same 
law  as  death.  They  separated  the  person  thus  affected 
from  the  congregation,  and  excluded  him  from  the  public 
worship  of  a  holy  God,  as  making  him  "  unclean." 

It  is  impossible  now  to  miss  the  spiritual  meaning  of 
these  laws  concerning  issues  of  this  class.  In  that 
these  alone,  out  of  many  others,  which  from  a  merely 
physical  point  of  view  are  equally  offensive,  were 
taken  under  the  cognisance  of  this  law,  the  fact  was 
thereby  symbolically  emphasised  that  the  fountain  of 
life  in  man  is  defiled.  To  be  a  sinner  were  bad  enough, 
if  It  only  involved  the  voluntary  and  habitual  practice 
of  sin.  But  this  law  of  issues  testifies  to  us,  even  now, 
that,  as  God  sees  man's  case,  it  is  far  worse  than  this. 
The  evil  of  sin  is  so  deeply  seated  that  it  could  lie  no 
deeper.     The  curse  has  in  such  manner  fallen  on  our 


XV.  1-33-]      OF  THE   UNCLEANNESS  OF  ISSUES.  309 

being,  as  that  in  man  and  woman  the  powers  and 
faculties  which  concern  the  propagation  of  their  kind 
have  fallen  under  the  blight.  All  that  any  son  of  Adam 
can  now  do  is  to  beget  a  son  in  his  own  physical  and 
moral  image,  an  heir  of  death,  and  by  nature  unclean 
and  unholy.  Sufficiently  distasteful  this  truth  is  in  all 
ages ;  but  in  none  perhaps  ever  more  so  than  our  own, 
in  which  it  has  become  a  fundamental  postulate  of 
much  popular  theology,  and  of  popular  politics  as  well, 
that  man  is  naturally  not  bad,  but  good,  and,  on  the 
whole,  is  doing  as  well  as  under  the  law  of  evolution, 
and  considering  his  environment,  can  reasonably  be 
expected.  The  spiritual  principle  which  underlies  the 
law  concerning  defilement  by  issues,  as  also  that  con- 
cerning the  uncleanness  of  child-bearing,  assumes  the 
exact  opposite. 

It  is  indeed  true  that  similar  causes  ot  ceremonial 
uncleanness  have  been  recognised  in  ancient  and  in 
modern  times  among  many  other  peoples.  But  this  is 
no  objection  to  the  truth  of  the  interpretation  of  the 
Mosaic  law  here  given.  For  in  so  far  as  there  is 
genuine  agreement,  the  fact  may  rather  confirm  than 
weaken  the  argument  for  this  view  of  the  case,  as 
showing  that  there  is  an  ineradicable  instinct  in  the 
heart  of  man  which  connects  all  that  directly  or  in- 
directly has  to  do  with  the  continuance  of  our  race, 
in  a  peculiar  degree,  with  the  ideas  of  uncleanness  and 
shame.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  differences  in 
such  cases  from  the  Mosaic  law  show  us  just  what 
we  should  expect, — a  degree  of  moral  confusion  and 
a  deadening  of  the  moral  sense  among  the  heathen 
nations,  which  is  most  significant.  As  has  been  justly 
remarked,  the  Hindoo  has  one  law  on  this  subject 
for  the  Brahman,  another  for  others;  the  outcast  for 


310  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

some  deadly  sin,  often  of  a  purely  frivolous  nature, 
and  a  new-born  child,  are  reckoned  equally  unclean. 
Or, — to  take  the  case  of  a  people  contemporary  with 
the  Hebrews, — among  the  ancient  Chaldeans,  while 
these  same  issues  were  accounted  ceremonially  defiling, 
as  in  the  law  of  Moses,  with  these  were  also  reckoned 
in  the  same  category,  as  unclean,  whatsoever  was 
separated  from  the  body,  even  to  the  cuttings  of  the 
hair  and  the  parings  of  the  nails.  Evidently,  we  thus 
have  here,  not  likeness,  but  a  profound  and  most  sug- 
gestive moral  contrast  between  the  Chaldean  and  the 
Hebrew  law.  Of  the  profound  ethical  truth  which 
vitalises  and  gives  deep  significance  to  the  law  of 
Moses,  we  find  no  trace  in  the  other  system.  And  it 
is  no  wonder  if,  indeed,  the  one  law  is,  as  declared,  a 
revelation  from  the  holy  God,  and  the  other  the  work 
of  sinful  and  sin-blinded  man. 

It  is  another  moral  lesson  which  is  brought  before 
us  in  these  laws  that,  as  God  looks  at  the  matter,  sin 
pertains  not  only  to  action,  but  also  to  being.  Not 
only  actions,  from  which  we  can  abstain,  but  operations 
of  nature  which  we  cannot  help,  alike  defile ;  defile 
in  such  a  manner  and  degree  as  to  require,  even  as 
voluntary  acts  of  sin,  the  cleansing  of  water,  and  the 
expiatory  blood  of  a  sin-offering.  One  could  not  avoid 
many  of  the  defilements  mentioned  in  this  chapter,  but 
that  made  no  difference;  he  was  unclean.  For  the 
lesser  grades  of  uncleanness  it  sufficed  that  one  be 
purified  by  washing  with  water ;  and  a  sin-offering  was 
only  required  when  this  purification  had  been  neglected ; 
but  in  all  cases  where  the  defilement  assumed  its 
extreme  form,  the  sin-offering  and  the  burnt-offering 
must  be  brought,  and  be  offered  for  the  unclean  person 
by  the  priest.     So  is  it,  we  are  taught,  with  that  sin  of 


XV.I-33-]     OF  THE   UNCLEAN  NESS  OF  ISSUES.  311 

nature  which  these  cases  symbolised ;  we  cannot  help 
it,  and  yet  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  the  cleans- 
ing of  the  blood  of  Christ  is  required  for  its  removal. 
Very  impressive  in  its  teaching  now  becomes  the 
miracle  in  which  our  Lord  healed  the  poor  woman 
afQicted  with  the  issue  of  blood  (Mark  v.  25-34),  for 
which  she  had  vainly  sought  cure.  It  was  a  case  hke 
that  covered  by  the  law  in  chap.  xv.  25-27;  and  he 
who  will  read  and  consider  the  provisions  of  that  law 
will  understand,  as  otherwise  he  could  not,  how  great 
her  trial  and  how  heavy  her  burden  must  have  been. 
He  will  wonder  also,  as  never  before,  at  the  boldness 
of  her  faith,  who,  although,  according  to  the  law,  her 
touch  should  defile  the  Lord,  yet  ventured  to  believe 
that  not  only  should  this  not  be  so,  but  that  the  healing 
power  which  went  forth  from  Him  should  neutralise 
the  defilement,  and  carry  healing  virtue  to  the  very 
centre  of  her  life.  Thus,  if  other  miracles  represent 
our  Lord  as  meeting  the  evil  of  sin  in  its  various  mani- 
festations in  action,  this  miracle  represents  His  healing 
power  as  reaching  to  the  very  source  and  fountain  of 
life,  where  it  is  needed  no  less. 

The  law  concerning  the  removal  of  these  defilements, 
after  all  that  has  preceded,  will  admit  only  of  one 
interpretation.  The  washing  of  water  is  the  uniform 
symbol  of  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  pollution  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  sacrifices  point  to 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  in  its  twofold  aspect  as  burnt- 
offering  and  sin-offering,  as  required  by  and  availing 
for  the  removal  of  the  sinful  defilement  which,  in  the 
mind  of  God,  attaches  even  to  that  in  human  nature 
which  is  not  under  the  control  of  the  will.  At  the 
same  time,  whereas  in  all  these  cases  the  sin-offering 
prescribed  is  the  smallest  known  to  the  law,  it  is  sym- 


^12  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


bolised,  in  full  accord  with  the  teaching  of  conscience, 
that  the  gravity  of  the  defilement,  where  there  has  not 
been  the  active  concurrence  of  the  will,  is  less  than 
where  the  will  has  seconded  nature.  In  all  cases  of 
prolonged  defilement  from  these  sources,  it  was  required 
that  the  affected  person  should  still  be  regarded  as 
unclean  for  seven  days  after  the  cessation  of  the 
infirmity,  and  on  the  eighth  day  came  the  sacrificial 
cleansing.  The  significance  of  the  seven  as  the 
covenant  number,  the  number  also  wherein  was  com- 
pleted the  old  creation,  has  been  already  before  us: 
that  of  "  the  eighth  "  will  best  be  considered  in  con- 
nection with  the  provisions  of  chap,  xii.,  to  which  we 
next  turn  our  attention. 

The  law  of  this  chapter  has  a  formal  closing,  in  which 
are  used  these  words  (ver.  31)  :  "  Thus  shall  ye  separ- 
ate the  children  of  Israel  from  their  uncleanness ;  that 
they  die  not  in  their  uncleanness,  when  they  defile  My 
tabernacle  that  is  in  the  midst  of  them." 

Of  which  the  natural  meaning  is  this,  that  the  defile- 
ments mentioned,  as  conspicuous  signs  of  man's  fallen 
condition,  were  so  offensive  before  a  holy  God,  as  apart 
from  these  purifications  to  have  called  down  the  judg- 
ment of  death  on  those  in  whom  they  were  found.  In 
these  words  lies  also  the  deeper  spiritual  thought — if  we 
have  rightly  apprehended  the  symbolic  import  of  these 
regulations — that  not  only,  as  in  former  cases  mentioned 
under  the  law  of  offerings,  do  voluntary  acts  of  sin 
separate  from  God  and  if  unatoned  for  call  down  His 
judgment,  but  that  even  our  infirmities  and  the  in- 
voluntary motions  of  sin  in  our  nature  have  the  same 
effect,  and,  apart  from  the  cleansing  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  the  blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  ensure  the  final 
judgment  of  death. 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

THE   UNCLEANNESS  OF  CHILD-BEARING. 
Lev.  xii.  1-8. 

THE  reference  in  xii.  2  to  the  regulatfbns  given  in 
XV.  19,  as  remarked  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
shows  us  that  the  author  of  these  laws  regarded  the 
circumstances  attending  child-birth  as  falling  under  the 
same  general  category,  in  a  ceremonial  and  symbolic 
aspect,  as  the  law  of  issues.  As  a  special  case,  how- 
ever, the  law  concerning  child-birth  presents  some  very 
distinctive  and  instructive  features. 

The  period  during  which  the  mother  was  regarded 
as  unclean,  in  the  full  comprehension  of  that  term,  was 
seven  days,  as  in  the  analogous  case  mentioned  in 
XV.  19,  with  the  remarkable  exception,  that  when  she 
had  borne  a  daughter  this  period  was  doubled.  At 
the  expiration  of  this  period  of  seven  days,  her  cere- 
monial uncleanness  was  regarded  as  in  so  far  lessened 
that  the  restrictions  affecting  the  ordinary  relations  of 
life,  as  ordered,  xv.  19-23,  were  removed.  She  was 
not,  however,  yet  allowed  to  touch  any  hallowed  thing 
or  to  come  into  the  sanctuary,  until  she  had  fulfilled, 
from  the  time  of  the  birth  of  the  child,  if  a  son,  forty 
days ;  if  a  daughter,  twice  forty,  or  eighty  days.  At 
the  expiration  of  the  longer  period,  she  was  to  bring, 
as  in  the  law  concerning  the  prolonged  issue  of  blood 
(xv.   25-30),   a  burnt-offering  and  a  sin-offering  unto 


314  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting,  wherewith  the  priest 
was  to  make  an  atonement  for  her;  when  first  she 
should  be  accounted  clean,  and  restored  to  full  cove- 
nant privileges.  The  only  difference  from  the  similar 
law  in  chap.  xv.  is  in  regard  to  the  burnt-offering  com- 
manded, which  was  larger  and  more  costly, — a  lamb, 
instead  of  a  turtle  dove,  or  a  young  pigeon.  Still,  in 
the  same  spirit  of  gracious  accommodation  to  the  poor 
which  was  illustrated  in  the  general  law  of  the  sin- 
offering,  it  was  ordered  (ver.  8.)  :  "  If  her  means  suffice 
not  for  a  lamb,  then  she  shall  take  two  turtledoves,  or 
two  young  pigeons ;  the  one  for  a  burnt  offering,  and 
the  other  for  a  sin  offering."  The  law  then  applied, 
according  to  xv.  29,  30.  A  gracious  provision  this 
was,  as  all  will  remember,  of  which  the  mother  of  our 
Lord  availed  herself  (Luke  ii.  22-24),  as  being  one  of 
those  who  were  too  poor  to  bring  a  lamb  for  a  burnt- 
offering. 

To  the  meaning  of  these  regulations,  the  key  is 
found  in  the  same  conceptions  which  we  have  seen  to 
underlie  the  law  concerning  issues.  In  the  birth  of 
a  child,  the  special  original  curse  against  the  woman 
is  regarded  by  the  law  as  reaching  its  fullest,  most  con- 
summate and  significant  expression.  For  the  extreme 
evil  of  the  state  of  sin  into  which  the  first  woman,  by 
that  first  sin,  brought  all  womanhood,  is  seen  most  of 
all  in  this,  that  now  woman,  by  means  of  those  powers 
given  her  for  good  and  blessing,  can  bring  into  the 
world  only  a  child  of  sin.  And  it  is,  apparently, 
because  we  here  see  the  operation  of  this  curse  in  its 
most  conspicuous  form,  that  the  time  of  her  enforced 
separation  from  the  tabernacle  worship  is  prolonged  to 
a  period  either  of  forty  or  eighty  days. 

It  has  been  usual  to  speak  of  the  time  of  the  mother's 


xiu3.]     THE   UNCLEANNESS  OF  CHILD-BEARING.         315 

uncleanness,  and  subsequent  continued  exclusion  from 
the  tabernacle  worship,  as  being  doubled  in  the  case 
of  the  birth  of  a  daughter ;  but  it  were,  perhaps,  more 
accurate  to  regard  the  normal  length  of  these  periods  as 
being  respectively  fourteen  and  eighty  days,  of  which 
the  former  is  double  of  that  required  in  xv.  2^.  This 
normal  period  would  then  be  more  properly  regarded 
as  shortened  by  one  half  in  the  case  of  a  male  child,  in 
virtue  of  his  circumcision  on  the  eighth  day. 

The  Ordinance  of  Circumcision. 
xii.  3. 

"  And  in  the  eighth  day  the  flesh  of  his  foreskin  shall  be  circum- 
cised." 

Although  the  rite  of  circumcision  here  receives  a  new 
and  special  sanction,  it  had  been  appointed  long  before 
by  God  as  the  sign  of  His  covenant  with  Abraham 
(Gen.  xvii.  10-14).  Nor  was  circumcision,  probably, 
even  then  a  new  thing.  That  the  ancient  Egyptians 
practised  it  is  well  known ;  so  also  did  the  Arabs  and 
Phoenicians  ;  in  fact,  the  custom  has  been  very  exten- 
sively observed,  not  only  by  nations  with  whom  the 
Israelites  came  in  contact,  but  by  others  who  have  not 
had,  in  historic  times,  connection  with  any  civilised 
peoples ;  as,  for  example,  the  Congo  negroes,  and  cer- 
tain Indian  tribes  in  South  America. 

The  fundamental  idea  connected  with  circumcision, 
by  most  of  the  peoples  who  have  practised  it,  appears 
to  have  been  physical  purification ;  indeed,  the  Arabs 
call  it  by  the  name  tatuVf  which  has  this  precise  mean- 
ing. And  it  deserves  to  be  noticed  that  for  this  idea 
regarding  circumcision  there  is  so  much  reason  in  fact, 
that  high  medical  authorities  have  attributed  to  it  a  real 
hygienic  value,  especially  in  warm  climates. 


3i6  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


No  one  need  feel  any  difBculty  in  supposing  that 
this  common  conception  attached  to  the  rite  also  in  the 
minds  of  the  Hebrews.  Rather  all  the  more  fitting 
it  was,  if  there  was  a  basis  in  fact  for  this  familiar 
opinion,  that  God  should  thus  have  taken  a  ceremony 
already  known  to  the  surrounding  peoples,  and  in  itself 
of  a  wholesome  physical  effect,  and  constituted  it  for 
Abraham  and  his  seed  a  symbol  of  an  analogous 
spiritual  fact ;  namely,  the  purification  of  sin  at  its 
fountain-head,  the  cleansing  of  the  evil  nature  with 
which  we  all  are  born.  It  should  be  plain  enough  that 
it  makes  nothing  against  this  as  the  true  interpretation 
of  the  rite,  even  if  that  be  granted  which  some  have 
claimed,  that  it  has  had,  in  some  instances,  a  connection 
with  the  phallic  worship  so  common  in  the  East,  or 
that  it  has  been  regarded  by  some  as  a  sacrificial 
ceremony.  Only  the  more  noteworthy  would  it  thus 
appear  that  the  Hebrews  should  have  held  strictly  to 
that  view  of  its  significance  which  had  a  solid  basis  in 
physical  fact, — a  fact,  moreover,  which  made  it  a  pecu- 
liarly fitting  symbol  of  the  spiritual  grace  which  the 
Biblical  writers  connect  with  it.  For  that  it  was  so 
regarded  by  them  will  not  be  disputed.  In  this  very 
book  (xxvi.  41)  we  read  of  an  "  uncircumcised  heart;" 
as  also  in  Deuteronomy,  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel,  and  other  books  of  Scripture. 

All  this,  as  intimating  the  signification  of  circumcision 
as  here  enjoined,  is  further  established  by  the  New 
Testament  references.  Of  these  the  most  formal  is 
perhaps  that  in  Col.  ii.  10,  11,  where  we  read  that 
believers  in  Christ,  in  virtue  of  their  union  with  Him 
in  whom  the  unclean  nature  has  been  made  clean,  are 
said  to  be  "circumcised  with  a  circumcision  not  made 
with   hands,    in   the   putting   off  of  the  body  of  the 


xii.3.]    THE   UNCLEANNESS  OF  CHILD-BEARING.         317 

flesh;  in  the  circumcision  of  Christ ; "  so  that  Paul  else- 
where writes  to  the  Philippians  (iii.  3):  ''We  are  the 
circumcision,  who  worship  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
glory  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in  the 
flesh." 

And  that  God,  in  selecting  this  ancient  rite  to  be  the 
sign  of  His  covenant  in  the  flesh  of  Abraham  and  his 
seed  (Gen.  xvii.  13),  had  regard  to  the  deep  spiritual 
meaning  which  it  could  so  naturally  carry  is  explicitly 
declared  by  the  Apostle  Paul  (Rom.  iv.  1 1),  who  tells 
us  that  this  sign  of  circumcision  was  "  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith,"  even  the  righteousness  and 
the  faith  concerning  which,  in  the  previous  context,  he 
was  arguing ;  and  which  are  still,  for  all  men,  the  one, 
the  ground,  and  the  other,  the  condition,  of  salvation. 
It  is  truly  strange  that,  in  the  presence  of  these  plain 
words  of  the  Apostle,  any  should  still  cling  to  the  idea 
that  circumcision  had  reference  only  to  the  covenant 
with  Israel  as  a  nation,  and  not,  above  all,  to  this 
profound  spiritual  truth  which  is  basal  to  salvation, 
whether  for  the  Jew  or  for  the  Gentile. 

And  so,  when  the  Hebrew  infant  was  circumcised,  it 
signified  for  him  and  for  his  parents  these  spiritual 
realities.  It  was  an  outward  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  God  with  Abraham  and  with  his  seed,  to 
be  a  God  to  him  and  to  his  seed  after  him ;  and  it 
signified  further  that  this  covenant  of  God  was  to  be 
carried  out  and  made  effectual  only  through  the  putting 
away  of  the  flesh,  the  corrupt  nature  with  which  we  are 
born,  and  of  all  that  belongs  to  it,  in  order  that,  thus 
circumcised  with  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  every 
child  of  Abraham  might  indeed  be  an  Israelite  in  whom 
there  should  be  no  guile. 

And  the  law  commands,  in  accord  with  the  original 


3i8  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

command  to  Abraham,  that  the  circumcision  should 
take  place  on  the  eighth  day.  This  is  the  more  notice- 
able, that  among  other  nations  which  practised,  or  still 
practise,  the  rite,  the  time  is  different.  The  Egyptians, 
for  example,  circumcised  their  sons  between  the  sixth 
and  tenth  years,  and  the  modern  Mohammedans  be- 
tween the  twelfth  and  fourteenth  year.  What  is  the 
significance  of  this  eighth  day  ? 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  we  have 
in  this  direction  a  provision  of  God's  mercy ;  for  if 
delayed  beyond  infancy  or  early  childhood,  as  among 
many  other  peoples,  the  operation  is  much  more  serious, 
and  may  even  involve  some  danger ;  while  in  so  early 
infancy  it  is  comparatively  trifling,  and  attended  with 
no  risk. 

Further,  by  the  administration  of  circumcision  at  the 
very  opening  of  life,  it  is  suggested  that  in  the  Divine 
ideal  the  grace  which  was  signified  thereby,  of  the 
cleansing  of  nature,  was  to  be  bestowed  upon  the  child, 
not  first  at  a  late  period  of  life,  but  from  its  very 
beginning,  thus  anticipating  the  earliest  awakening  of 
the  principle  of  inborn  sin.  It  was  thus  signified  that 
before  ever  the  child  knew,  or  could  know,  the  grace 
that  was  seeking  to  save  him,  he  was  to  be  taken  into 
covenant  relation  with  God.  So  even  under  the  strange 
form  of  this  ordinance  we  discover  the  same  mind 
that  was  in  Him  who  said  concerning  infant  children 
(Luke  xviii.  i6)  :  ^'  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto 
Me,  and  forbid  them  not :  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God."  Thus  we  may  well  recollect,  in  passing, 
that,  although  the  law  has  passed  away  in  the  Levitical 
form,  the  mind  of  the  Lawgiver  concerning  the  little 
children  of  His  people,  is  still  the  same. 

But  the  question  still  remains.  Why  was  the  eighth 


xii.3.]     THE  UNCLEANNESS  OF  CHILD-BEARING.         319 

day  selected,  and  not  rather,  for  instance,  the  sixth  or 
the  seventh,  which  would  have  no  less  perfectly  repre- 
sented these  ideas  ?  The  answer  is  to  be  found  in  the 
symbolic  significance  of  the  eighth  day.  As  the  old 
creation  was  completed  in  six  days,  with  a  following 
Sabbath  of  rest,  so  that  six  is  ever  the  number  of  the 
old  creation,  as  under  imperfection  and  sin  ;  the  eighth 
day,  which  is  the  first  day  of  a  new  week,  everywhere 
in  Scripture  appears  as  the  number  symbolic  of  the 
new  creation,  in  which  all  things  shall  be  restored  in 
the  great  redemption  through  the  Second  Adam.  The 
thought  finds  its  fullest  expression  in  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  as  the  First-born  from  the  dead,  the  Begin- 
ning and  the  Lord  of  the  new  creation,  who  in  His 
resurrection-body  manifested  the  first-fruits  in  physical 
life  of  the  new  creation,  rising  frojn  the  dead  on  the 
first,  or,  in  other  words,  the  day  after  the  seventh,  the 
eighth  day.  This  gives  the  key  to  the  use  of  the 
number  eight  in  the  Mosaic  symbolism.  Thus  in  the 
law  of  the  cleansing  of  the  man  or  the  woman  that  had 
an  issue,  the  sacrifices  which  effectuated  their  formal 
deliverance  from  the  curse  under  which,  through  the 
weakness  of  their  old  nature,  they  had  suffered,  were 
to  be  offered  on  the  eighth  day  (xv.  14,  29) ;  the 
priestly  cleansing  of  the  leper  from  the  taint  of  his  living 
death  was  also  effected  on  the  eighth  day  (xiv.  10); 
so  also  the  cleansing  of  the  Nazarite  who  had  been 
defiled  by  the  dead  (Numb.  vi.  10).  So  also  the  holy 
convocation  which  closed  the  feast  of  tabernacles  or  in- 
gathering— the  feast  which,  as  we  shall  see,  typically 
prefigured  the  great  harvest  of  which  Christ  was  the 
First-fruits — was  ordained,  in  like  manner,  for  the  eighth 
day  (xxiii.  36).  With  good  reason,  then,  was  circum- 
cision ordered  for  the  eighth  day,  seeing  that  what  it 


320  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

symbolically  signified  was  precisely  this  :  the  putting 
off  of  the  flesh  with  which  we  are  born  through  the 
circumcision  of  Christ,  and  therewith  the  first  beginning 
of  a  new  and  purified  nature — a  change  so  profound 
and  radical,  and  in  which  the  Divine  efficiency  is  so 
immediately  concerned,  that  Paul  said  of  it  that  if  any 
man  was  in  Christ,  in  whose  circumcision  we  are  cir- 
cised  (Col.  ii.  ii),  "there  is  a  new  creation"  (2  Cor. 
V.  17,  margin,  R.V.). 

Purification  after  Child-birth. 

xii.  4-8. 

"And  she  shall  continue  in  the  blood  of  her  purifying  three  and 
thirty  days;  she  shall  touch  no  hallowed  thing,  nor  come  into  the 
sanctuary,  until  the  days  of  her  purifying  be  fulfilled.  But  if  she  bear 
a  maid  child,  then  she  shall  be  unclean  two  weeks,  as  in  her  impurity : 
and  she  shall  continue  in  the  blood  of  her  purifying  threescore  and 
six  days.  And  when  the  days  of  her  purifying  are  fulfilled,  for  a  son, 
or  for  a  daughter,  she  shall  bring  a  lamb  of  the  first  year  for  a  burnt 
offering,  and  a  young  pigeon,  or  a  turtledove,  for  a  sin  offering,  unto 
the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting,  unto  the  priest :  and  he  shall  offer 
it  before  the  Lord,  and  make  atonement  for  her;  and  she  shall  be 
cleansed  from  the  fountain  of  her  blood.  This  is  the  law  for  her  that 
beareth,  whether  a  male  or  a  female.  And  if  her  means  suffice  not 
for  a  lamb,  then  she  shall  take  two  turtledoves,  or  two  young  pigeons ; 
the  one  for  a  burnt  offering,  and  the  other  for  a  sin  offering :  and  the 
priest  shall  make  atonement  for  her,  and  she  shall  be  clean." 

Until  the  circumcision  of  the  new-born  child,  on  the 
eighth  day,  he  was  regarded  by  the  law  as  ceremonially 
still  in  a  state  of  nature,  and  therefore  as  symbolically 
unclean.  For  this  reason,  again,  the  mother  who  had 
brought  him  into  the  world,  and  whose  life  was  so 
intimately  connected  with  his  life,  was  regarded  as 
unclean  also.  Unclean,  under  analogous  circumstances, 
according  to  the  law  of  xv.  19,  she  was  reckoned 
doubly  unclean  in  this  case, — unclean  because  of  her 
issue,  and  unclean  because  of  her  connection  with  this 


xii.4-8.]     PURIFICATION  AFTER  CHILD-BIRTH.  321 

child,  uncircumcised  and  unclean.  But  when  the  sym- 
bolic cleansing  of  the  child  took  place  by  the  ordinance 
of  circumcision,  then  her  uncleanness,  so  far  as  occa- 
sioned by  her  immediate  relation  to  him,  came  to  an 
end.  She  was  not  indeed  completely  restored ;  for, 
according  to  the  law,  in  her  still  continuing  condition, 
it  was  impossible  that  she  should  be  allowed  to  come 
into  the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord,  or  touch  any  hallowed 
thing;  but  the  ordinance  which  admitted  her  child, 
admitted  her  also  again  to  the  fellowship  of  the  covenant 
people. 

The  longer  period  of  forty — or,  in  the  case  of  the 
birth  of  a  female  child,  of  twice  forty — days  must  also 
be  explained  upon  symbolical  grounds.  Some  have 
indeed  attempted  to  account  for  these  periods,  as  also 
for  the  difference  in  their  length  in  the  two  cases,  by 
a  reference  to  beliefs  of  the  ancients  with  regard  to  the 
physical  condition  of  the  mother  during  these  periods ; 
but  such  notions  of  the  ancients  are  not  justified  by 
facts ;  nor,  especially,  would  they  by  any  means  account 
for  the  greatly  prolonged  period  of  eighty  days  in  the 
case  of  the  female  child.  It  is  possible  that  in  the 
forty,  and  twice  forty,  we  may  have  a  reference  to 
the  forty  weeks  during  which  the  life  of  the  unborn 
child  had  been  identified  with  that  of  the  mother, — a 
child  which,  it  must  be  remembered,  according  to  the 
uniform  Biblical  view,  was  not  innocent,  but  conceived 
in  sin ;  for  each  week  of  which  connection  of  life,  the 
mother  suffered  a  judicial  exclusion  of  one,  or,  in  the 
case  of  the  birth  of  a  daughter,  of  two  days ;  the  time 
being  doubled  in  the  latter  case  with  allusion  to  the 
double  curse  which,  according  to  Genesis,  rested  upon 
the  woman,  as  **■  first  in  the  transgression."  But,  apart 
from  this,  however  difficult  it  may  be  to  give  a  satis- 

21 


322  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


factory  explanation  of  the  fact,  it  is  certain  that  through- 
out Scripture  the  number  forty  appears  to  have  a 
symbolic  meaning ;  and  one  can  usually  trace  in  its 
application  a  reference,  more  or  less  distinct,  to  the 
conception  of  trial  or  testing.  Thus  for  forty  days  was 
Moses  in  the  mount, — a  time  of  testing  for  Israel,  as 
for  him :  forty  days,  the  spies  explored  the  promised 
land ;  forty  years,  Israel  was  tried  in  the  wilderness ; 
forty  days,  abode  Elijah  in  the  wilderness ;  forty  days, 
also,  was  our  Lord  fasting  in  the  wilderness ;  and  forty 
days,  again,  He  abode  in  resurrection  life  upon  the 
earth. 

The  forty  (or  eighty)  days  ended,  the  mother  was 
now  formally  reinstated  in  the  fulness  of  her  privileges 
as  a  daughter  of  Israel.  The  ceremonial,  as  in  the 
law  of  issues,  consisted  in  the  presentation  of  a  burnt- 
offering  and  a  sin-offering,  with  the  only  variation 
that,  wherever  possible,  the  burnt-offering  must  be  a 
young  lamb,  instead  of  a  dove  or  pigeon ;  the  reason 
for  which  variation  is  to  be  found  either  in  the  fact 
that  the  burnt- offering  was  to  represent  not  herself 
alone,  but  also  her  child,  or,  possibly,  as  some  have 
suggested,  it  was  because  she  had  been  so  much  longer 
excluded  from  the  tabernacle  service  than  in  the  other 
case.-^ 

The  teaching  of  this  law,  then,  is  twofold  :  it  concerns, 
first,  the  woman ;  and,  secondly,  the  child  which  she 
bears.  As  regards  the  woman,  it  emphasises  the  fact 
that,  because  *'  first  in  the  trangression,"  she  is  under 
special  pains  and  penalties  in  virtue  of  her  sex.  The 
capacity  of  motherhood,  which  is  her  crown  and  her  glory, 
though   still  a  precious  privilege,  has  yet  been  made, 

*  This    latter    reason,    however,    would    rather    appear    to    have 
<iemanded,  as  in  the  case  of  the  leper,  a  guilt-offering. 


xii.4-8.]     PURIFICATION  AFTER  CHILD-BIRTH.  323 

because  of  sin,  an  inevitable  instrument  of  pain,  and 
that  because  of  her  relation  to  the  first  sin.  We  are 
thus  reminded  that  the  specific  curse  denounced  against 
the  woman,  as  recorded  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  is  no 
dead  letter,  but  a  fact.  No  doubt,  the  conception  is  one 
which  raises  difficulties  which  in  themselves  are  great, 
and  to  modern  thought  are  greater  than  ever.  Never- 
theless, the  fact  abides  unaltered,  that  even  to  this  day 
woman  is  under  special  pains  and  disabilities,  inseparably 
connected  with  her  power  of  motherhood.  Modern 
theorists,  men  and  women  with  nineteenth-century 
notions  concerning  politics  and  education,  may  persist 
in  ignoring  this ;  but  the  fact  abides,  and  cannot  be  got 
rid  of  by  passing  resolutions  in  a  mass-meeting,  or  even 
by  Act  of  Parliament  or  Congress. 

And  so,  as  it  is  useless  to  object  to  facts,  it  is  only 
left  to  object  to  the  Mosaic  view  of  the  facts,  which 
connects  them  with  sin,  and,  in  particular,  with  the  first 
sin.  Why  should  all  the  daughters  of  Eve  suffer  because 
of  her  sin  ?  Where  is  the  justice  in  such  an  ordinance  ? 
A  question  this  is  to  which  we  cannot  yet  give  any 
satisfactory  answer.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  because 
in  any  proposition  there  are  difficulties  which  at  present 
we  are  unable  to  solve,  therefore  the  proposition  is  false. 
And,  further,  it  is  important  to  observe  that  this  law, 
under  which  womanhood  abides,  is  after  all  only  a 
special  case  under  that  law  of  the  Divine  government 
which  is  announced  in  the  second  commandment,  by 
which  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  are  visited  upon 
the  children.  It  is  most  certainly  a  law  which,  to 
our  apprehension,  suggests  great  moral  difficulties, 
even  to  the  most  reverent  spirits;  but  it  is  no  less 
certainly  a  law  which  represents  a  conspicuous  and 
tremendous  fact,  which  is  illustrated,  for  instance,  in  the 


324  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

family  of  every  drunkard  in  the  world.  And  it  is  well 
worth  observing,  that  while  the  ceremonial  law,  which 
was  specially  intended  to  keep  this  fact  before  the  mind 
and  the  conscience,  is  abrogated,  the  fact  that  woman  is 
still  under  certain  Divinely  imposed  disabilities  because 
of  that  first  sin,  is  reaffirmed  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  is  by  apostolic  authority  applied  in  the  administra- 
tion of  Church  government.  For  Paul  wrote  to  Timothy 
(i  Tim.  ii.  12,  13):  "I  permit  not  a  woman  to  teach, 
nor  to  have  dominion  over  a  man.  .  .  .  For  Adam  was 
not  beguiled,  but  the  woman  being  beguiled  hath  fallen 
into  transgression."  Modern  theorists,  and  so-called 
"  reformers "  in  Church,  State,  and  society,  busy  with 
their  social,  governmental,  and  ecclesiastical  novelties, 
would  do  well  to  heed  this  apostolic  reminder. 

All  the  more  beautiful,  as  against  this  dark  back- 
ground of  mystery,  is  the  word  of  the  Apostle  which 
follows,  wherein  he  reminds  us  that,  through  the  grace 
of  God,  even  by  means  of  those  very  powers  of  mother- 
hood on  which  the  curse  has  so  heavily  fallen,  has  come 
the  redemption  of  the  woman  ;  so  that  ^'  she  shall  be 
saved  through  the  childbearing,  if  they  continue  in 
faith  and  love  and  sanctification  with  sobriety " 
(i  Tim.  ii.  15,  R.V.)  ;  seeing  that  "in  Christ  Jesus," 
in  respect  of  the  completeness  and  freeness  of  salvation, 
^'  there  can  be  no  male  and  female  "  (Gal.  iii.  28,  R.V.). 

But,  in  the  second  place,  we  may  also  derive  abiding 
instruction  from  this  law,  concerning  the  child  which  is 
of  man  begotten  and  of  woman  born.  It  teaches  us 
that  not  only  has  the  curse  thus  fallen  on  the  woman, 
but  that,  because  she  is  herself  a  sinful  creature,  she 
can  only  bring  forth  another  sinful  creature  like  herself; 
and  if  a  daughter,  then  a  daughter  inheriting  all  her 
own  peculiar  infirmities  and  disabilities.     The  law,  as 


xii.4-8.]     PURIFICATION  AFTER  CHILD-BIRTH.  325 

regards  both  mother  and  child,  expresses  in  the  language 
of  symbolism  those  words  of  David  in  his  penitential 
confession  (Psalm  li.  5):  "Behold,  I  was  shapen  in 
iniquity ;  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me." 
Men  may  contemptuously  call  this  '*  theology/'  or  even 
rail  at  it  as  "  Calvinism  ;  "  but  it  is  more  than  theology, 
more  than  Calvinism ;  it  is  a  fact,  to  which  until  this 
present  time  history  has  seen  but  one  exception,  even 
that  mysterious  Son  of  the  Virgin,  who  claimed,  how- 
ever, to  be  no  mere  man,  but  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  Blessed ! 

And  yet  many,  who  surely  can  think  but  superficially 
upon  the  solemn  facts  of  life,  still  object  to  this  most 
strenuously,  that  even  the  new-born  child  should  be 
regarded  as  in  nature  sinful  and  unclean.  Difficulty 
here  we  must  all  admit, — difficulty  so  great  that  it  is 
hard  to  overstate  it — regarding  the  bearing  of  this  fact 
on  the  character  of  the  holy  and  merciful  God,  who 
in  the  beginning  made  man.  And  yet,  surely,  deeper 
thought  must  confess  that  herein  the  Mosaic  view 
of  infant  nature — a  view  which  is  assumed  and  taught 
throughout  Holy  Scripture — however  humbling  to  our 
natural  pride,  is  only  in  strictest  accord  with  what 
the  admitted  principles  of  the  most  exact  science 
compel  us  to  admit.  For  whenever,  in  any  case,  we 
find  all  creatures  of  the  same  class  doing,  under  all 
circumstances,  any  one  thing,  we  conclude  that  the 
reason  for  this  can  only  lie  in  the  nature  of  such 
creatures,  antecedent  to  any  influence  of  a  tendency 
to  imitation.  If,  for  instance,  the  ox  everywhere  and 
always  eats  the  green  thing  of  the  earth,  and  not  flesh, 
the  reason,  we  say,  is  found  simply  in  the  nature  of  the 
ox  as  he  comes  into  being.  So  when  we  see  all  men, 
everywhere,  under  all  circumstances,  as  soon  as  ever 


326  THE  BOOK   OF  LEVITICUS. 

they  come  to  the  time  of  free  moral  choice,  always 
choosing  and  committing  sin,  what  can  we  conclude — 
regarding  this,  not  as  a  theological,  but  merely  as  a 
scientific  question — but  that  man,  as  he  comes  into  the 
world,  must  have  a  sinful  nature  ?  And  this  being  so, 
then  why  must  not  the  law  of  heredity  apply,  accord- 
ing to  which,  by  a  law  which  knows  of  no  exceptions, 
like  ever  produces  its  like  ? 

Least  of  all,  then,  should  those  object  to  the  view  of 
child-nature  which  is  represented  in  this  law  of  Leviticus, 
who  accept  these  commonplaces  of  modern  science  as 
representing  facts.  Wiser  it  were  to  turn  attention  to 
the  other  teaching  of  the  law,  that,  notwithstanding 
these  sad  and  humiliating  facts,  there  is  provision  made 
by  God,  through  the  cleansing  by  grace  of  the  very  nature 
in  which  we  are  born,  and  atonement  for  the  sin  which 
without  our  fault  we  inherit,  for  a  complete  redemp- 
tion from  all  the  inherited  corruption  and  guilt. 

And,  last  of  all,  especially  should  Christian  parents 
with  joy  and  thankfulness  receive  the  manifest  teaching 
of  this  law, — teaching  reaffirmed  by  our  blessed  Lord  in 
the  New  Testament, — that  God  our  Father  offers  to 
parental  faith  Himself  to  take  in  hand  our  children,  even 
from  the  earliest  beginning  of  their  infant  days,  and, 
purifying  the  fountain  of  their  life  through  *'  a  circum- 
cision made  without  hands,"  receive  the  little  ones  into 
covenant  relation  with  Himself,  to  their  eternal  salvation. 
And  thus  is  the  word  of  the  Apostle  fulfilled  :  "  Where 
sin  abounded,  grace  did  abound  more  exceedingly : 
that,  as  sin  reigned  in  death,  even  so  might  grace  reign 
through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord." 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

THE   UNCLEANNESS   OF  LEPROSY. 
Lev.  xtii.  I -46. 

THE  interpretation  of  this  chapter  presents  no  little 
difficulty.  The  description  of  the  diseases  with 
which  the  law  here  deals  is  not  given  in  a  scientific  form ; 
the  point  of  view,  as  the  purpose  of  all,  is  strictly 
practical.  As  for  the  Hebrew  word  rendered  ^'  leprosy/' 
it  does  not  itself  give  any  light  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
disease  thus  designated.  The  word  simply  means  ''a 
stroke,"  as  also  does  the  generic  term  used  in  ver.  2 
and  elsewhere,  and  translated  "plague."  Inasmuch 
as  the  Septuagint  translators  rendered  the  former 
term  by  the  Greek  word  "  lepra "  (whence  our  word 
' 'leprosy "),  and  as,  it  is  said,  the  old  Greek  phy- 
sicians comprehended  under  that  term  only  such  scaly 
cutaneous  eruptions  as  are  now  known  as  psoriasis 
{vulg.f  *'  salt-rheum  "),  and  for  what  is  now  known  as 
leprosy  reserved  the  term  "  elephantiasis,"  ^  it  has 
been  therefore  urged  by  high  authority  that  in  these 
chapters  is  no  reference  to  the  leprosy  of  modern 
speech,  but  only  to  some  disease  or  diseases  much  less 

*  This  word,  it  should  be  noted,  is  now  popularly  used  to  denote 
a  disease  quite  distinct  from  leprosy,  known  also  as  "Barbadoes 
leg,"  which  consists  essentially  of  an  elephantine  enlargement  of 
the  lower  extremities. 


328  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

serious,  either  psoriasis  or  some  other,  consisting,  hke 
that,  of  a  scaly  eruption  on  the  skin.^  To  the  above 
argument  it  is  also  added  that  the  signs  which  are 
given  for  the  recognition  of  the  disease  intended,  are 
not  such  as  we  should  expect  if  it  were  the  modern 
leprosy ;  as,  for  example,  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
insensibility  of  the  skin,  which  is  so  characteristic  a 
feature  of  the  disease,  at  least,  in  a  very  common 
variety ;  moreover,  we  find  in  this  chapter  no  allusion 
to  the  hideous  mutilation  which  so  commonly  results 
from  leprosy. 

When  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  term  rendered 
*'  leprosy "  is  examined,  in  this  law  and  elsewhere,  it 
certainly  seems  to  be  used  with  great  definiteness  to 
describe  a  disease  which  had  as  a  very  characteristic 
feature  a  whitening  of  the  skin  throughout,  together 
with  other  marks  common  to  the  early  stages  of  leprosy 
as  given  in  this  chapter.  Only  in  ver.  12  does  the 
Hebrew  word  appear  to  be  applied  to  a  disease  of  a 
different  character,  though  also  marked  by  the  whitening 
of  the  skin.  As  for  the  symptoms  indicated,  the 
undoubted  absence  of  many  conspicuous  marks  of 
leprosy  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  following  con- 
siderations. In  the  first  place,  with  a  single  exception 
(vv.  9- 11),  the  earliest  stages  of  the  disease  are 
described  ;  and,  secondly,  it  may  reasonably  be  assumed 
that,  through  the  desire  to  ensure  the  earliest  possible 
separation  of  a  leprous  man  from  the  congregation,  signs 
were  to  be  noted  and  acted  upon,  which  might  also  be 
found  in  other  forms  of  skin  disease.  The  aim  of  the 
law  is  that,  if  possible,  the  man  shall  be  removed  from 

*  This  opinion  has  been  ably  argued  by  Sir  Risdon  Bennett,  M.D., 
LL.D.,  F.R.S.,  in  "By-paths  of  Bible  Knowledge,"  vol.  ix.,  "The 
Diseases  of  the  Bible." 


xiii.  1.46.]       THE  UNCLEANNESS  OF  LEPROSY.  329 

the  camp  before  the  disease  has  assumed  its  most 
unambiguous  and  revolting  form.  As  for  the  omission 
to  mention  the  insensibility  of  the  skin  of  the  leper, 
this  seems  to  be  sufficiently  explained  when  we  re- 
member that  this  symptom  is  characteristic  of  only  one, 
and  that  not  the  most  fatal,  variety  of  the  disease. 

But,  it  has  also  been  urged,  that  elsewhere  in  the 
Scripture  the  so-called  lepers  appear  as  mingling  with 
other  people — as,  for  example,  in  the  case  of  Naaman 
and  Gehazi — in  a  way  which  shows  that  the  disease 
was  not  regarded  as  contagious ;  whence  it  is  inferred, 
again,  that  the  leprosy  of  which  we  read  in  the  Bible 
cannot  be  the  same  with  the  disease  which  is  so  called 
in  our  time.  But,  in  reply  to  this  objection,  it  may  be 
answered  that  even  modern  medical  opinion  has  been 
by  no  means  as  confident  of  the  contagiousness  of  the 
disease — at  least,  until  quite  recently — as  were  people 
in  the  middle  ages ;  nor,  moreover,  can  we  assume  that 
the  prevention  of  contagion  must  have  been  the  chief 
reason  for  the  segregation  of  the  leper,  according  to  the 
Levitical  law,  seeing  that  a  like  separation  was  en- 
joined in  many  other  cases  of  ceremonial  uncleanness 
where  any  thought  of  contagion  or  infection  was  quite 
impossible. 

In  further  support  of  the  more  common  opinion, 
which  identifies  the  disease  chiefly  referred  to  in  this 
chapter  with  the  leprosy  of  modern  times,  the  following 
considerations  appear  to  be  of  no  little  weight.  In  the 
first  place,  the  words  themselves  which  are  applied  to 
the  disease  in  these  chapters  and  elsewhere, — tsardath 
and  nega\  both  meaning,  etymologicaily,  "  a  stroke," 
i.e. J  a  stroke  in  some  eminent  sense,^ — while  peculiarly 
fitting  if  the  disease  be  that  which  we  now  know  as 

*  Compare  our  frequent  use  of  the  word  to  denote  paralysis. 


330  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

leprosy,  seem  very  strangely  chosen  if,  as  Sir  Risdon 
Bennett  thinks,  they  only  designate  varieties  of  a  disease 
of  so  little  seriousness  as  psoriasis.  Then,  again,  the 
words  used  by  Aaron  to  Moses  (Numb.  xii.  12),  re- 
ferring to  the  leprosy  of  Miriam,  deserve  great  weight 
here :  "  Let  her  not,  I  pray,  be  as  one  dead,  of  whom 
the  flesh  is  half  consumed."  These  words  sufficiently 
answer  the  allegation  that  there  is  no  certain  reference 
in  Scripture  to  the  mutilation  which  is  so  characteristic 
of  the  later  stages  of  the  disease.  It  would  not  be  easy 
to  describe  in  more  accurate  language  the  condition  of 
the  leper  as  the  plague  advances ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  the  leprosy  of  the  Bible  be  only  such  a  light 
affection  as  "  salt-rheum,"  these  words  and  the  evident 
horror  which  they  express,  are  so  exaggerated  as  to  be 
quite  unaccountable. 

Then,  again,  we  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  place  which 
the  disease  known  in  Scripture  language  as  leprosy 
holds  in  the  sight  of  the  law.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is 
singled  out  from  a  multitude  of  diseases  as  the  object 
of  the  most  stringent  and  severe  regulations,  and  the 
most  elaborate  ceremonial,  known  to  the  law.  Now,  if 
the  disease  intended  be  indeed  the  awful  elephantiasis 
Grcecorum  of  modern  medical  science,  popularly  known 
as  leprosy,  this  is  most  natural  and  reasonable  ;  but  if, 
on  the  other  hand,  only  some  such  non-mahgnant 
disease  2iS>  psoriasis  be  intended,  this  fact  is  inexplicable. 
Further,  the  tenour  of  all  references  to  the  disease  in 
the  Scripture  implies  that  it  was  deemed  so  incurable 
that  its  removal  in  any  case  was  regarded  as  a 
special  sign  of  the  exercise  of  Divine  power.  The 
reference  of  the  Hebrew  in^id  of  Naaman  to  the 
prophet  of  God  (2  Kings  v.  3),  as  one  who  could  cure 
him,  instead   of  proving  that  i<-  was  thought  curable 


xiii.i-46.]       THE   UNCLEANNESS  OF  LEPROSY.  331 

— as  has  been  strangely  urged — by  ordinary  means, 
surely  proves  the  exact  opposite.  Naaman,  no  doubt, 
had  exhausted  medical  resources ;  and  the  hope  of  the 
maid  for  him  is  not  based  on  the  medical  skill  of 
Elisha,  but  on  the  fact  that  he  was  a  prophet  of  God, 
and  therefore  able  to  draw  on  Divine  power.  To  the 
same  effect  is  the  word  of  the  King  of  Israel,  when  he 
received  the  letter  of  Naaman  (2  Kings  v.  7) :  '^  Am  I 
God,  to  kill  and  to  make  alive,  that  this  man  doth  send 
unto  me  to  recover  a  man  of  his  leprosy?"  In  full 
accord  with  this  is  the  appeal  of  our  Lord  (Matt.  xi.  5) 
to  His  cleansing  of  the  lepers,  as  a  sign  of  His 
Messiahship  v/hich  He  ranks  for  convincing  power 
along  with  the  raising  of  the  dead. 

Nor  is  it  a  fatal  objection  to  the  usual  understanding 
of  this  matter,  that  because  the  Levitical  law  prescribes 
a  ritual  for  the  ceremonial  cleansing  of  the  leper 
in  case  of  his  cure,  therefore  the  disease  so  called 
could  not  be  one  of  the  gravity  and  supposed  incura- 
bility of  the  true  leprosy.  For  it  is  to  be  noted,  in  the 
first  place,  that  there  is  no  intimation  that  recovery 
from  the  leprosy  was  a  common  occurrence,  or  even 
that  it  was  to  be  expected  at  all,  apart  from  the  direct 
power  of  God ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  that  the 
Scriptural  narrative  represents  God  as  now  and  then — 
though  very  rarely — interposing  for  the  cure  of  the 
leper.  And  it  may  perhaps  be  added,  that  while  a 
recent  authority  writes,  and  with  truth,  that  "  medical 
skill  appears  to  have  been  more  completely  foiled  by 
this  than  by  any  other  malady,"  it  is  yet  remarked  that, 
when  of  the  anaesthetic  variety,  ^'some  spontaneous 
cures  are  recorded." 

The  chapter  before  us  calls  for  little  detailed  exposi- 


332  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

tion.  The  diagnosis  of  the  disease  by  the  priest  is 
treated  under  four  different  heads  :  (i)  the  case  of  a 
leprosy  rising  spontaneously  (vv.  1-17,  38,  39)  ;  (2) 
leprosy  rising  out  of  a  boil  (vv.  18-24);  (3)  rising  out 
of  a  burn  (vv.  24-28);  (4)  leprosy  on  the  head  or 
beard  (vv.  29-37,  40-44)-  The  indications  which  are 
to  be  noted  are  described  (vv.  2,  3,  24-27,  etc.)  as  a 
rising  of  the  surface,  a  scab  (or  scale),  or  a  bright  spot 
(very  characteristic),  the  presence  in  the  spot  of  hair 
turned  white,  the  disease  apparently  deeper  than  the 
outer  or  scarf  skin,  a  reddish-white  colour  of  the  sur- 
face, and  a  tendency  to  spread.  The  presence  of 
"raw  flesh"  is  mentioned  (ver.  10)  as  an  indication  of  a 
leprosy  already  somewhat  advanced,  "  an  old  leprosy." 
In  cases  of  doubt,  the  suspected  case  is  to  be  isolated 
for  a  period  of  seven  or,  if  need  be,  fourteen  days,  at 
the  expiration  of  which  the  priest's  verdict  is  to  be 
given,  as  the  symptoms  may  then  indicate. 

Two  cases  are  mentioned  which  the  priest  is  not  to 
regard  as  leprosy.  The  first  (vv.  12,  13)  is  that  in 
which  the  plague  "  covers  all  the  skin  of  him  that  hath 
the  plagues  from  his  head  even  to  his  feet,  as  far  as 
appeareth  to  the  priest,"  so  that  he  "  is  all  turned 
white."  At  first  thought,  this  seems  quite  unaccount- 
able, seeing  that  leprosy  finally  affects  the  whole 
body.  But  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  not  far  to 
seek.  For  the  next  verse  provides  that,  in  such  a 
case,  if  "  raw  flesh  "  appear,  he  shall  be  held  to  be 
unclean.  The  explanation  of  this  provision  of  ver.  12 
is  therefore  apparently  this  :  that  if  an  eruption  had  so 
spread  as  to  cover  the  whole  body,  turning  it  white, 
and  yet  no  raw  flesh  had  appeared  in  any  place,  the 
disease  could  not  be  true  leprosy  ;  as,  if  it  were,  then, 
by  the  time  that  it  had  so  extended,  ''  raw  flesh  "  would 


xiii.i-46.]       THE   UNCLEANNESS   OF  LEPROSY.  333 

certainly  have  appeared  somewhere.  The  disease  in- 
dicated by  this  exception  was  indeed  well  known  to 
the  ancients,  as  it  is  also  to  the  moderns  as  the  "  dry 
tetter ; "  which,  although  an  affection  often  of  long 
duration,  frequently  disappears  spontaneously,  and  is 
never  malignant. 

The  second  case  which  is  specified  as  not  to  be 
mistaken  for  leprosy  is  mentioned  in  vv.  38,  39,  where 
it  is  described  as  marked  by  bright  spots  of  a  dull 
whiteness,  but  without  the  white  hair,  and  other 
characteristic  signs  of  leprosy.  The  Hebrew  word  by 
which  it  is  designated  is  rendered  in  the  Revised 
Version  "  tetter ; "  and  the  disease,  a  non-malignant 
tetter  or  eczema,  is  still  known  in  the  East  under  the 
same  name  (bohak)  which  is  here  used. 

Verses  45,  46,  give  the  law  for  him  who  has  been  by 
the  priest  adjudged  to  be  a  leper.  He  must  go  with 
clothes  rent,  with  his  hair  neglected,  his  lip  covered, 
crying,  ^'  Unclean  !  unclean  ! "  without  the  camp,  and 
there  abide  alone  for  so  long  as  he  continues  to  be 
afflicted  with  the  disease.  In  other  words,  he  is  to 
assume  all  the  ordinary  signs  of  mourning  for  the 
dead ;  he  is  to  regard  himself,  and  all  others  are  to 
regard  him,  as  a  dead  man.  As  it  were,  he  is  a  con- 
tinual mourner  at  his  own  funeral. 

Wherein  lay  the  reason  for  this  law  ?  One  might 
answer,  in  general,  that  the  extreme  loathsomeness  of 
the  disease,  which  made  the  presence  of  those  who  had 
it  to  be  abhorrent  even  to  their  nearest  friends,  would 
of  itself  make  it  only  fitting,  however  distressing  might 
be  the  necessity,  that  such  persons  should  be  excluded 
from  every  possibility  of  appearing,  in  their  revolting 
corruption,  in  the  sacred  and  pure  precincts  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  holy  God,  as  also  from  mingling  with 


334  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


His  people.  Many,  however,  have  seen  in  the  regu- 
lation only  a  wise  law  of  public  hygiene.  That  a 
sanitary  intent  may  very  probably  have  been  included 
in  the  purpose  of  this  law,  we  are  by  no  means 
inclined  to  deny.  In  earlier  times,  and  all  through 
the  middle  ages,  the  disease  was  regarded  as  con- 
tagious ;  and  lepers  were  accordingly  segregated, 
as  far  as  practicable,  from  the  people.  In  modern 
times,  the  weight  of  opinion  until  recent  years  has 
been  against  this  older  view ;  but  the  tendency  of 
medical  authority  now  appears  to  be  to  reaffirm  the 
older  belief.  The  alarming  increase  of  this  horrible 
disease  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  of  late,  following 
upon  a  general  relaxation  of  those  precautions  against 
contagion  which  were  formerly  thought  necessary, 
certainly  supports  this  judgment ;  and  it  may  thus  be 
easily  believed  that  there  was  just  sanitary  ground  for 
the  rigid  regulations  of  the  Mosaic  code.  And  just 
here  it  may  be  remarked,  that  if  indeed  there  be  any 
degree  of  contagiousness,  however  small,  in  this 
plague,  no  one  who  has  ever  seen  the  disease,  or 
understands  anything  of  its  incomparable  horror  and 
loathsomeness,  will  feel  that  there  is  any  force  in  the 
objections  which  have  been  taken  to  this  part  of  the 
Mosaic  law  as  of  inhuman  harshness  toward  the 
sufferers.  Even  were  the  risk  of  contagion  but  small, 
as  it  probably  is,  still,  so  terrible  is  the  disease  that 
one  would  more  justly  say  that  the  only  inhumanity 
were  to  allow  those  afflicted  with  it  unrestricted  inter- 
course with  their  fellow-men.  The  truth  is,  that  the 
Mosaic  law  concerning  the  treatment  of  the  leper, 
when  compared  with  regulations  touching  lepers  which 
have  prevailed  among  other  nations,  stands  contrasted 
with  them  by  its  comparative  leniency.     The  Hindoo 


xiii.  1-46.]       THE   UNCLEANNESS  OF  LEPROSY.  335 

law,  as  is  well  known,  even  insists  that  the  leper  ought 
to  put  himself  out  of  existence,  requiring  that  he  shall 
be  buried  alive. 

But  if  there  be  included  in  these  regulations  a 
sanitary  intent,  this  certainly  does  not  exhaust  their 
significance.  Rather,  if  this  be  admitted,  it  only 
furnishes  the  basis,  as  in  the  case  of  the  laws  con- 
cerning clean  and  unclean  meats,  for  still  more  pro- 
found spiritual  teaching.  For,  as  remarked  before,  it 
is  one  of  the  fundamental  thoughts  of  the  Mosaic  law, 
that  death,  as  being  the  extreme  visible  manifestation 
of  the  presence  of  sin  in  the  race,  and  a  sign  of  the 
consequent  holy  wrath  of  God  against  sinful  man,  is 
inseparably  connected  with  legal  uncleanness.  But  all 
disease  is  a  forerunner  of  death,  an  incipient  dying ; 
and  is  thus,  no  less  really  than  actual  death,  a  visible 
manifestation  of  the  presence  and  power  of  sin  working 
in  the  body  through  death.  And  yet  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  it  would  have  been  quite  impracticable  to  carry 
out  a  law  that  therefore  all  disease  should  render 
the  sick  person  ceremonially  unclean ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  was  of  consequence  that  Israel,  and  we 
as  well,  should  be  kept  in  remembrance  of  this  con- 
nection between  sin  and  disease,  as  death  beginning. 
What  could  have  been  more  fitting,  then,  than  this,  that 
the  one  disease  which,  without  exaggeration,  is  of  all 
diseases  the  most  loathsome,  which  is  most  manifestly 
a  visible  representation  of  that  which  is  in  a  measure 
true  of  all  disease,  that  it  is  death  working  in  life, 
that  disease  which  is,  not  in  a  merely  rhetorical  sense, 
but  in  fact,  a  living  image  of  death, — should  be  selected 
from  all  others  for  the  illustration  of  this  principle :  to 
be  to  Israel  and  to  us,  a  visible,  perpetual,  and  very 
awful  parable  of  the  nature  and  the  working  of  sin  ? 


336  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

And  this  is  precisely  what  has  been  done.  This 
explains,  as  sanitary  considerations  alone  do  not,  not 
merely  the  separation  of  the  leper  from  the  holy  people, 
but  also  the  solemn  symbolism  which  required  him  to 
assume  the  appearance  of  one  mourning  for  the  dead , 
as  also  the  symbolism  of  his  cleansing,  which,  in  like 
manner,  corresponded  very  closely  with  that  of  the 
ritual  of  cleansing  from  defilement  by  the  dead. 
Hence,  while  all  sickness,  in  a  general  way,  is  regarded 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  a  fitting  symbol  of  sin,  it  has 
always  been  recognised  that,  among  all  diseases,  leprosy 
is  this  in  an  exceptional  and  pre-eminent  sense.  This 
thought  seems  to  have  been  in  the  mind  of  David, 
when,  after  his  murder  of  Uriah  and  adultery  with 
Bathsheba,  bewailing  his  iniquity  (Psalm  li.  7),  he  prayed, 
''  Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean."  For 
the  only  use  of  the  hyssop  in  the  law,  which  could  be 
alluded  to  in  these  words,  is  that  which  is  enjoined 
(xiv.  4-7)  in  the  law  for  the  cleansing  of  the  leper,  by 
the  sprinkling  of  the  man  to  be  cleansed  with  blood 
and  water  with  a  hyssop  branch. 

And  thus  we  find  that,  again,  this  elaborate  cere- 
monial contains,  not  merely  an  instructive  lesson  in 
public  sanitation,  and  practical  suggestions  in  hygiene 
for  our  modern  times ;  but  also  lessons,  far  more  pro- 
found and  momentous,  concerning  that  spiritual  malady 
with  which  the  whole  human  race  is  burdened, — lessons 
therefore  of  the  gravest  personal  consequence  for  every 
one  of  us. 

From  among  all  diseases,  leprosy  has  been  selected 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  stand  in  the  law  as  the  supreme 
type  of  sin,  as  seen  by  God  !  This  is  the  very  solemn  fact 
which  is  brought  before  us  in  this  chapter.  Let  us  well 
consider  it,  and  see  that  we  receive  the  lesson,  however 


xiii.  1-46.]       THE   UNCLEANNESS   OF  LEPROSY.  337 

humiliating  and  painful,  in  the  spirit  of  meekness  and 
penitence.  Let  us  so  study  it  that  we  shall  with  great 
earnestness  and  true  faith  resort  to  the  true  and 
heavenly  High  Priest,  who  alone  can  cleanse  us  of  this 
sore  malady.  And  in  order  to  this,  we  must  carefully 
consider  what  is  involved  in  this  type. 

In  the  first  place,  leprosy  is  undoubtedly  selected  to 
be  a  special  type  of  sin,  on  account  of  its  extreme  loath- 
someness. Beginning,  indeed,  as  an  insignificant  spot, 
^'  a  bright  place,"  a  mere  scale  on  the  skin,  it  goes  on 
spreading,  progressing  ever  from  worse  to  worse,  till  at 
last  limb  drops  from  limb,  and  only  the  hideous  muti- 
lated remnant  of  what  was  once  a  man  is  left.  A  vivid 
picture  of  the  horrible  reality  has  been  given  by  that 
veteran  missionary  and  very  accurate  observer,  the  Rev. 
William  Thomson,  D.D.,  who  writes  thus:  "As  I  was 
approaching  Jerusalem,  I  was  startled  by  the  sudden 
apparition  of  a  crowd  of  beggars,  sans  eyes,  sans  nose, 
sans  hair,  sans  everything.  .  .  .  They  held  up  their 
handless  arms,  unearthly  sounds  gurgled  through  throats 
without  palates, — in  a  word,  I  was  horrified."  ^  Too 
horrible  is  this  to  be  repeated  or  thought  of  ?  Yes ! 
But  then  all  the  more  solemnly  instructive  is  it  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  should  have  chosen  this  disease,  the  most 
loathsome  of  all,  as  the  most  fatal  of  all,  to  symbolise 
to  us  the  true  nature  of  that  spiritual  malady  which 
affects  us  all,  as  it  is  seen  by  the  omniscient  and  most 
holy  God. 

But  it  will  very  naturally  be  rejoined  by  some; 
Surely  it  were  gross  exaggeration  to  apply  this  horrible 
symbolism  to  the  case  of  many  who,  although  indeed 
sinners,  unbelievers  also  in  Christ,  yet  certainly  exhibit 

'  "The  Land  and  the  Book,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  530,  531. 

22 


338  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

truly  lovely  and  attractive  characters.  That  this  is 
true  regarding  many  who,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
are  yet  unsaved,  cannot  be  denied.  We  read  of  one 
such  in  the  Gospel, — a  young  man,  unsaved,  who  yet 
was  such  that  "  Jesus  looking  upon  him  loved  him  " 
(Mark  x.  2i).  But  this  fact  only  makes  the  leprosy 
the  more  fitting  symbol  of  sin.  For  another  character- 
istic of  the  disease  is  its  insignificant  and  often  even 
imperceptible  beginning.  We  are  told  that  in  the  case  of 
those  who  inherit  the  taint,  it  frequently  remains  quite 
dormant  in  early  life,  only  gradually  appearing  in  later 
years.  How  perfectly  the  type,  in  this  respect,  then, 
symbolises  sin  !  And  surely  any  thoughtful  man  will 
confess  that  this  fact  makes  the  presence  of  the  infec- 
tion not  less  alarming,  but  more  so.  No  comfort  then 
can  be  rightly  had  from  any  complacent  comparison  of 
our  own  characters  with  those  of  many,  perhaps  pro- 
fessing more,  who  are  much  worse  than  we,  as  the 
manner  of  some  is.  No  one  who  knew  that  from  his 
parents  he  had  inherited  the  leprous  taint,  or  in  whom 
the  leprosy  as  yet  appeared  as  only  an  insignificant 
bright  spot,  would  comfort  himself  greatly  by  the 
observation  that  other  lepers  were  much  worse ;  and 
that  he  was,  as  yet,  fair  and  goodly  to  look  upon. 
Though  the  leprosy  were  in  him  but  just  begun,  that 
would  be  enough  to  fill  him  with  dismay  and  consterna- 
tion.   So  should  it  be  with  regard  to  sin. 

And  it  would  so  affect  such  a  man  the  more  surely, 
when  he  knew  that  the  disease,  however  slight  in  its  be- 
ginnings, was  certainly  progressive.  This  is  one  of  the 
unfailing  marks  of  the  disease.  It  may  progress  slowly, 
but  it  progresses  surely.  To  quote  again  the  vivid 
and  truthful  description  of  the  above-named  writer, 
'*  It  comes  on  by  degrees  in  different  parts  of  the  body  : 


xiii.  1-46.]      THE  UN  CLEAN  NESS  OF  LEPROSY.  339 

the  hair  falls  from  the  head  and  eyebrows ;  the  nails 
loosen,  decay,  and  drop  off;  joint  after  joint  of  the 
fingers  and  toes  shrinks  up  and  slowly  falls  away ;  the 
gums  are  absorbed,  and  the  teeth  disappear  ;  the  nose, 
the  eyes,  the  tongue,  and  the  palate  are  slowly  con- 
sumed ;  and,  finally,  the  wretched  victim  sinks  into 
the  earth  and  disappears." 

In  this  respect  again  the  fitness  of  the  disease  to 
stand  as  an  eminent  type  of  sin  is  undeniable.  No 
man  can  morally  stand  still.  No  one  has  ever  retained 
the  innocence  of  childhood.  Except  as  counteracted 
by  the  efficient  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart, 
the  Word  (2  Tim.  iii.  13)  is  ever  visibly  fulfilled,  "evil 
men  wax  worse  and  worse."  Sin  may  not  develop 
in  all  with  equal  rapidity,  but  it  does  progress  in  every 
natural  man,  outwardly  or  inwardly,  with  equal  certainty. 

It  is  another  mark  of  leprosy  that  sooner  or  later  it 
affects  the  whole  man;  and  in  this,  again,  appears  the 
sad  fitness  of  the  disease  to  stand  as  a  symbol  of  sin. 
For  sin  is  not  a  partial  disorder,  affecting  only  one 
class  of  faculties,  or  one  part  of  our  nature.  It  dis- 
orders the  judgment ;  it  obscures  our  moral  perceptions  ; 
it  either  perverts  the  affections,  or  unduly  stimulates 
them  in  one  direction,  while  it  deadens  them  in  another ; 
it  hardens  and  quickens  the  will  for  evil,  while  it 
paralyses  its  power  for  the  volition  of  that  which  is 
holy.  And  not  only  the  Holy  Scripture,  but  observa- 
tion itself,  teaches  us  that  sin,  in  many  cases,  also  affects 
the  body  of  man,  weakening  its  powers,  and  bringing 
in,  by  an  inexorable  law,  pain,  disease,  and  death. 
Sooner  or  later,  then,  sin  affects  the  whole  man.  And 
for  that  reason,  again,  is  leprosy  set  forth  as  its  pre- 
eminent symbol. 

It  is  another  remarkable  feature  of  the  disease  that, 


340  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


as  it  progresses  from  bad  to  worse,  the  victim  becomes 
more  and  more  insensible.  This  numbness  or  insensi- 
bility of  the  spots  affected — in  one  most  common  variety 
at  least — is  a  constant  feature.  In  some  cases  it  be- 
comes so  extreme  that  a  knife  may  be  thrust  into  the 
affected  limb,  or  the  diseased  flesh  may  be  burnt  with 
fire,  and  yet  the  leper  feels  no  pain.  Nor  is  the  in- 
sensibilit}'^  confined  to  the  body,  but,  as  the  leprosy 
extends,  the  mind  is  affected  in  an  analogous  manner. 
A  recent  writer  says  :  "  Though  a  mass  of  bodily  cor- 
ruption, at  last  unable  to  leave  his  bed,  the  leper  seems 
happy  and  contented  with  his  sad  condition."  Is 
anything  more  characteristic  than  this  of  the  malady 
of  sin  ?  The  sin  which,  when  first  committed,  costs  a 
keen  pang,  afterward,  when  frequently  repeated,  hurts 
not  the  conscience  at  all.  Judgments  and  mercies, 
which  in  earlier  life  affected  one  with  profound  emotion, 
in  later  life  leave  the  impenitent  sinner  as  unmoved 
as  they  found  him.  Hence  we  all  recognise  the  fitness 
of  the  common  expression,  "  a  seared  conscience,"  as 
also  of  the  Apostle's  description  of  advanced  sinners 
as  men  who  are  "past  feeling"  (Eph.  iv.  19).  Of 
this  moral  insensibility  which  sin  produces,  then,  we 
are  impressively  reminded  when  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
the  Word  holds  before  us  leprosy  as  a  type  of  sin. 

Another  element  of  the  solemn  fitness  of  the  type  is 
found  in  the  persistently  hereditary  nature  of  leprosy. 
It  may  indeed  sometimes  arise  of  itself,  even  as  did 
sin  in  the  case  of  certain  of  the  holy  angels,  and  with 
our  first  parents ;  but  when  once  it  is  introduced,  in 
the  case  of  any  person,  the  terrible  infection  descends 
with  unfailing  certainty  to  all  his  descendants  ;  and 
while,  by  suitable  hygiene,  it  is  possible  to  alleviate  its 
violence,  and  retard  its  development,  it  is  not  possible 


xiii.  1-46.]       THE   UNCLEAN  NESS   OF  LEPROSY.  341 

to  escape  the  terrible  inheritance.  Is  anything  more 
uniformly  characteristic  of  sin  ?  We  may  raise  no  end 
of  metaphysical  difficulties  about  the  matter,  and  put 
unanswerable  questions  about  freedom  and  responsi- 
bility ;  but  there  is  no  denying  the  hard  fact  that  since 
sin  first  entered  the  race,  in  our  first  parents,  not  a 
child  of  man,  of  human  father  begotten,  has  escaped 
the  taint.  If  various  external  influences,  as  in  the 
case  of  leprosy,  may,  in  some  instances,  modify  its 
manifestations,  yet  no  individual,  in  any  class  or  con- 
dition of  mankind,  escapes  the  taint.  The  most  culti- 
vated and  the  most  barbarous  alike,  come  into  the 
world  so  constituted  that,  quite  antecedent  to  any  act 
of  free  choice  on  their  part,  we  know  that  it  is  not 
more  certain  that  they  will  eat  than  that,  when  they 
begin  to  exercise  freedom,  they  will,  each  and  every 
one,  use  their  moral  freedom  wrongly, — in  a  word,  will 
sin.  No  doubt,  then,  when  such  prominence  is  given 
to  leprosy  among  diseases,  in  the  Mosaic  symbolism 
and  elsewhere,  it  is  with  intent,  among  other  truths,  to 
keep  before  the  mind  this  very  solemn  and  awful  fact 
with  regard  to  the  sin  which  it  so  fitly  symbolises. 

And,  again,  we  find  yet  another  analogy  in  the  fact 
that,  among  the  ancient  Hebrews,  the  disease  was 
regarded  as  incurable  by  human  means ;  and,  notwith- 
standing occasional  announcements  in  our  day  that  a 
remedy  has  been  discovered  for  the  plague,  this  seems 
to  be  the  verdict  of  the  best  authorities  in  medical 
science  still.  That  in  this  respect  leprosy  perfectly 
represents  the  sorer  malady  of  the  soul,  every  one  is 
witness.  No  possible  effort  of  will  or  fixedness  of 
determination  has  ever  availed  to  free  a  man  from 
sin.  Even  the  saintliest  Christian  has  often  to  confess 
with  the  Apostle  Paul  (Rom.  vii.  19),  ^'The  evil  which 


342  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

I  would  not,  that  I  practise."  Neither  is  culture, 
whether  intellectual  or  religious,  of  any  more  avail. 
To  this  all  human  history  testifies.  In  our  day,  de- 
spite the  sad  lessons  of  long  experience,  many  are 
hoping  for  much  from  improved  government,  education, 
and  such  like  means ;  but  vainly,  and  in  the  face  of 
the  most  patent  facts.  Legislation  may  indeed  impose 
restrictions  on  the  more  flagrant  forms  of  sin,  even  as 
it  may  be  of  service  in  restricting  the  devastations  of 
leprosy,  and  ameliorating  the  condition  of  lepers.  But 
to  do  away  with  sin,  and  abolish  crime  by  any  conceiv- 
able legislation,  is  a  dream  as  vain  as  were  the  hope 
of  curing  leprosy  by  a  good  law  or  an  imperial  pro- 
clamation. Even  the  perfect  law  of  God  has  proved 
inadequate  for  this  end  ;  the  Apostle  (Rom.  viii.  3) 
reminds  us  that  in  this  it  has  failed,  and  could  not  but 
fail,  "in  that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh."  Nothing 
can  well  be  of  more  importance  than  that  we  should  be 
keenly  alive  to  this  fact ;  that  so  we  may  not,  through 
our  present  apparently  tolerable  condition,  or  by  tem- 
porary alleviations  of  the  trouble,  be  thrown  off  our 
guard,  and  hope  for  ourselves  or  for  the  world,  upon 
grounds  which  afford  no  just  reason  for  hope. 

Last  of  all,  the  law  of  leprosy,  as  given  in  this  chapter, 
teaches  the  supreme  lesson,  that  as  with  the  symbolic 
disease  of  the  body,  so  with  that  of  the  soul,  sin  shuts 
out  from  God  and  from  the  fellowship  of  the  holy.  As 
the  leper  was  excluded  from  the  camp  of  Israel  and 
from  the  tabernacle  of  Jehovah,  so  must  the  sinner, 
except  cleansed,  be  shut  out  of  the  Holy  City,  and 
from  the  glory  of  the  heavenly  temple.  What  a 
solemnly  significant  parable  is  this  exclusion  of  the 
leper  from  the  camp !  He  is  thrust  forth  from  the 
congregation  of  Israel,  wearing  the  insignia  of  mourn- 


xiii.  1-46.]      THE  UNCLEANNESS  OF  LEPROSY.  343 

ing  for  the  dead  !  Within  the  camp,  the  multitude  of 
them  that  go  to  the  sanctuary  of  God,  and  that  joyfully 
keep  holy  day;  without,  the  leper  dwelling  alone,  in 
his  incurable  corruption  and  never-ending  mourning  ! 
And  so,  while  we  do  not  indeed  deny  a  sanitary  in- 
tention in  these  regulations  of  the  law,  but  are  rather 
inclined  to  affirm  it;  yet  of  far  more  consequence  is 
it  that  we  heed  the  spiritual  truth  which  this  solemn 
symbolism  teaches.  It  is  that  which  is  written  in  the 
Apocalypse  (xxi.  27;  xxii.  15)  concerning  the  New 
Jerusalem  :  "  There  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  it 
anything  unclean.  .  .  .  Without  are  the  dogs,  and  the 
sorcerers,  and  the  fornicators,  and  the  murderers,  and  the 
idolaters,  and  every  one  that  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie." 

In  view  of  all  these  correspondences,  one  need  not 
wonder  that  in  the  symbolism  of  the  law  leprosy  holds 
the  place  which  it  does.  For  what  other  disease  can 
be  named  which  combines  in  itself,  as  a  physical  malady, 
so  many  of  the  most  characteristic  marks  of  the  malady 
of  the  soul  ?  In  its  intrinsic  loathsomeness,  its  insigni- 
ficant beginnings,  its  slow  but  inevitable  progress,  in 
the  extent  of  its  effects,  in  the  insensibility  which 
accompanies  it,  in  its  hereditary  character,  in  its  incura- 
bility, and,  finaUy,  in  the  fact  that  according  to  the  law 
it  involved  the  banishment  of  the  leper  from  the  camp 
of  Israel, — in  all  these  respects,  it  stands  alone  as  a 
perfect  type  of  sin ;  it  is  sin,  as  it  were,  made  visible 
in  the  flesh. 

This  is  indeed  a  dark  picture  of  man's  natural  state, 
and  very  many  are  exceedingly  loth  to  believe  that  sin 
can  be  such  a  very  serious  matter.  Indeed,  the  funda- 
mental postulate  of  much  of  our  nineteenth-century 
thought,  in  matters  both  of  politics  and  religion,  denies 
the  truth  of  this  representation,   and  insists,  on    the 


344  THE  BOOK   OF  LEVITICUS. 


contrary,  that  man  is  naturally  not  bad,  but  good  ;  and 
that,  on  the  whole,  as  the  ages  go  by,  he  is  gradually 
becoming  better  and  better.  But  it  is  imperative  that 
our  views  of  sin  and  of  humanity  shall  agree  with  the 
representations  held  before  us  in  the  Word  of  God. 
When  that  Word,  not  only  in  type,  as  in  this  chapter, 
but  in  plain  language  (Jer.  xvii.  9,  R.V.),  declares  that 
"  the  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  it  is  despe- 
rately sickj^  it  must  be  a  very  perilous  thing  to  deny  this. 

It  is  a  profoundly  instructive  circumstance  that, 
according  to  this  typical  law,  the  case  of  the  supposed 
leper  was  to  be  judged  by  the  priest  (vv.  2,  3,  et  passim). 
All  turned  for  him  upon  the  priest's  verdict.  If  he 
declared  him  clean,  it  was  well ;  but  if  he  pronounced 
him  unclean,  it  made  no  difference  that  the  man  did 
not  believe  it,  or  that  his  friends  did  not  believe  it ;  or 
that  he  or  they  thought  better  in  any  respect  of  his 
case  than  the  priest, — out  of  the  camp  he  must  go.  He 
might  plead  that  he  was  certainly  not  nearly  in  so  bad 
a  case  as  some  of  the  poor,  mutilated,  dying  creatures 
outside  the  camp ;  but  that  would  have  no  weight, 
however  true.  For  still  he,  no  less  really  than  they, 
was  a  leper  ;  and,  until  made  whole,  into  the  fellowship 
of  lepers  he  must  go  and  abide.  Even  so  for  us  all ; 
everything  turns,  not  on  our  own  opinion  of  ourselves, 
or  on  what  other  men  may  think  of  us ;  but  solely  on 
the  verdict  of  the  heavenly  Priest. 

The  picture  thus  set  before  us  in  the  symbolism  of 
this  chapter  is  sad  enough  ;  but  it  would  be  far  more 
sad  did  the  law  not  now  carry  forward  the  symbolism 
into  the  region  of  redemption,  in  making  provision  for 
the  cleansing  of  the  leper,  and  his  re-admission  into  the 
fellowship  of  the  holy  people.  To  this  our  attention  is 
called  in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 

THE   CLEANSING   OF  THE  LEPER, 
Lev.  xiv.  1-32. 

THE  ceremonies  for  the  restoration  of  the  leper, 
when  healed  of  his  disease,  to  full  covenant  privi- 
leges, were  comprehended  in  two  distinct  series.  The 
first  part  of  the  ceremonial  took  place  without  the 
camp,  and  sufficed  only  to  terminate  his  condition  as 
one  ceremonially  dead,  and  allow  of  his  return  into  the 
camp,  and  his  association,  though  still  under  restriction, 
with  his  fellow-Israelites.  The  second  part  of  the 
ceremonial  took  up  his  case  on  the  eighth  day  there- 
after, where  the  former  ceremonial  had  left  him,  as  a 
member,  indeed,  of  the  holy  people,  but  a  member  still 
under  defilement  such  as  debarred  him  from  approach 
to  the  presence  of  Jehovah ;  and,  by  a  fourfold  offering 
and  an  anointing,  restored  him  to  the  full  enjoyment  of 
all  his  covenant  privileges  before  God. 

This  law  for  the  cleansing  of  the  leper  certainly 
implies  that  the  disease,  although  incurable  by  human 
skill,  yet,  whether  by  the  direct  power  of  God,  as  in 
several  instances  in  Holy  Scripture,  or  for  some  cause 
unknown,  might  occasionally  cease  its  ravages.  In 
this  case,  although  the  visible  effects  of  the  disease 
might  still  remain,  in  mutilations  and  scars,  yet  he 
would  be  none  the  less  a  healed  man.     That  occasionally 


346  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

instances  have  occurred  of  such  arrest  of  the  disease, 
is  attested  by  competent  observers,  and  the  law  before 
us  thus  provides  for  the  restoration  of  the  leper  in 
such  cases  to  the  position  from  which  his  leprosy  had 
excluded  him. 

The  first  part  of  the  ceremonial  (w.  3-9)  took  place 
without  the  camp ;  for  until  legally  cleansed  the  man 
was  in  the  sight  of  the  law  still  a  leper,  and  therefore 
under  sentence  of  banishment  from  the  congregation  of 
Israel.  Thus,  as  the  outcast  could  not  go  to  the  priest, 
the  priest,  on  receiving  word  of  his  desire,  went  to  him. 
For  the  ceremony  which  was  to  be  performed,  he  pro- 
vided himself  with  two  living,  clean  birds,  and  with 
cedar-wood,  and  scarlet,  and  hyssop ;  also  he  took  with 
him  an  earthen  vessel  filled  with  living  water, — ?>., 
with  water  from  some  spring  or  flowing  stream,  and 
therefore  presumably  pure  and  clean.  One  of  the 
birds  was  then  killed  in  such  a  manner  that  its  blood 
was  received  into  the  vessel  of  water ;  then  the  living 
bird  and  the  hyssop — bound,  as  we  are  told,  with  the 
scarlet  band  to  the  cedar-wood — were  dipped  into  the 
mingled  blood  and  water,  and  by  them  the  leper  was 
sprinkled  therewith  seven  times  by  the  priest,  and  was 
then  pronounced  clean;  when  the  living  bird,  stained 
with  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed,  was  allowed 
to  fly  away.  Thereupon,  the  leper  washed  his  clothes, 
shaved  off"  all  his  hair,  bathed  in  water,  and  entered  the 
camp.  This  completed  the  first  stadium  of  his  restoration. 

Certain  things  about  this  symbolism  seem  very  clear. 
First  of  all,  whereas  the  leper,  afflicted,  as  it  were,  with 
a  living  death,  had  become,  as  regards  Israel,  a  man 
legally  dead,  the  sprinkling  with  blood,  in  virtue  of 
which  he  was  allowed  to  take  his  place  again  in  the 
camp  as  a  living  Israelite,  symbolised  the  impartation 


xiv.  1-32.]        THE  CLEANSING   OF  THE  LEPER.  347 

of  life ;  and,  again,  inasmuch  as  death  is  defiling,  the 
blood  was  mingled  with  water,  the  uniform  symbol  of 
cleansing.  The  remaining  symbols  emphasise  thoughts 
closely  related  to  these.  The  cedar-wood  (or  juniper), 
which  is  almost  incorruptible,  signified  that  with  this 
new  life  was  imparted  also  freedom  from  corruption. 
Scarlet,  as  a  colour,  is  the  constant  symbol,  again,  like 
the  blood,  of  life  and  health.  What  the  hyssop  was 
is  still  in  debate  ;  but  we  can  at  least  safely  say  that 
it  was  a  plant  supposed  to  have  healing  and  purifying 
virtues. 

So  far  all  is  clear.  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
slaying  of  the  one  bird,  and  the  loosing  afterward  of 
the  other,  moistened  with  the  blood  of  its  fellow  ? 
Some  have  said  that  both  of  the  birds  symbolised  the 
leper  :  the  one  which  was  slain,  the  leper  as  he  was, — 
namely,  as  one  dead,  or  under  sentence  of  death  by  his 
plague ;  the  other,  naturally,  then,  the  leper  as  healed, 
who,  even  as  the  living  bird  is  let  fly  whither  it  will,  is 
now  set  at  liberty  to  go  where  he  pleases.  But  when 
we  consider  that  it  is  by  means  of  being  sprinkled  with 
the  blood  of  the  slain  bird  that  the  leper  is  cleansed, 
it  seems  quite  impossible  that  this  slain  bird  should 
typify  the  leper  in  his  state  of  defilement.  Indeed,  if 
this  bird  symbolised  him  as  under  his  disease,  this 
supposition  seems  even  absurd ;  for  the  blood  which 
cleansed  must  then  have  represented  his  own  blood, 
and  his  blood  as  diseased  and  unclean ! 

Neither  is  it  possible  that  the  other  bird,  which  was 
set  at  liberty,  should  represent  the  leper  as  healed,  and 
its  release,  his  liberation ;  however  plausible,  at  first 
thought,  this  explanation  may  seem.  For  the  very  same 
ceremony  as  this  with  the  two  birds  was  also  to  be 
used  in  the  cleansing  of  a  leprous  house  (vv.  50-53), 


548  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS 


where  it  is  evident  that  the  loosing  of  the  living  bird 
could  not  have  any  such  significance  ;  since  the  notion 
of  a  liberty  given  would  be  wholly  inapplicable  in  the 
case  of  a  house.  But  whatever  the  true  meaning  of 
the  symbolism  may  be,  it  is  clear  that  it  must  be  one 
which  will  apply  equally  well  in  each  of  the  two  cases, 
the  cleansing  of  the  leprous  house,  no  less  than  that 
of  the  leprous  person. 

We  are  therefore  compelled  to  regard  the  slaying  of 
the  one  bird  as  a  true  sacrifice.  No  doubt  there  are 
difficulties  in  the  way,  but  they  do  not  seem  insuperable, 
and  are,  in  any  case,  less  than  those  which  beset  other 
suppositions.  It  is  true  that  the  birds  are  not  pre- 
sented before  Jehovah  in  the  tabernacle  ;  but  as  the 
ceremony  took  place  outside  the  camp,  and  therefore  at 
a  distance  from  the  tabernacle,  this  may  be  explained  as 
merely  because  of  the  necessity  of  the  case.  It  is  true, 
again,  that  the  choice  of  the  bird  v>ras  not  limited,  as  in 
the  tabernacle  sacrifices,  to  the  turtle-dove  or  pigeon  ; 
but  it  might  easily  be  that  when,  as  in  this  case,  the 
sacrifice  was  elsewhere  than  at  the  tabernacle,  the  rules 
for  service  there  did  not  necessarily  apply.  Finally 
and  decisively,  when  we  turn  to  the  law  for  the 
cleansing  of  the  leprous  house,  we  find  that  atoning 
virtue  is  explicitly  ascribed  to  this  rite  with  the  birds 
(ver.  53)  :  "  He  shall  make  atonement  for  the  house." 

But  sacrifice  is  here  presented  in  a  different  aspect 
from  elsewhere  in  the  law.  In  this  ceremonial  the 
central  thought  is  not  consecration  through  sacrifice,  as 
in  the  burnt-offering ;  nor  expiation  of  guilt  through 
sacrifice,  as  in  the  sin-offering  ;  nor  yet  satisfaction  for 
trespass  committed,  as  in  the  guilt-ofiering.  It  is  sacri- 
fice as  procuring  for  the  man  for  whom  it  is  offered 
purity  and  life,  which  is  the  main  thought. 


xiy.i-32.]         THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  LEPER,  349 

But,  according  to  vv.  52,  53,  the  atonement  is  made 
with  both  the  dead  and  the  Hving  bird.  The  special 
thought  which  is  emphasised  by  the  use  of  the  latter, 
seems  to  be  merely  the  full  completeness  of  the  work 
of  cleansing  which  has  been  accomplished  through 
the  death  of  the  other  bird.  For  the  living  bird  was 
represented  as  ideally  identified  with  the  bird  which 
was  slain,  by  being  dipped  in  its  blood ;  and  in  that  it 
was  now  loosed  from  its  captivity,  this  was  in  token 
of  the  fact  that  the  bird,  having  now  given  its  life  to 
impart  cleansing  and  life  to  the  leper,  has  fully  accom- 
plished that  end. 

Obviously,  this  explanation  is  one  that  will  apply  no 
less  readily  to  the  cleansing  of  the  leprous  house  than 
of  the  leprous  person.  For  the  leprosy  in  the  house 
signifies  the  working  of  corruption  and  of  decay  and 
death  in  the  wall  of  the  house,  in  a  way  adapted  to  its 
nature,  as  really  as  in  the  case  of  the  person ;  and  the 
ceremonial  with  the  birds  and  other  material  prescribed 
means  the  same  with  it  as  with  the  other, — namely,  the 
removal  of  the  principle  of  corruption  and  disease,  and 
impartation  of  purity  and  wholesomeness.  In  both 
cases  the  sevenfold  sprinkling,  as  in  analogous  cases 
elsewhere  in  the  law,  signified  the  completeness  of 
the  cleansing,  to  which  nothing  was  lacking,  and  also 
certified  to  the  leper  that  by  this  impartation  of  new 
life,  and  by  his  cleansing,  he  was  again  brought  into 
covenant  relations  with  Jehovah. 

With  these  ceremonies,  the  leper's  cleansing  was 
now  in  so  far  effected  that  he  could  enter  the  camp  ; 
only  he  must  first  cleanse  himself  and  his  clothes  with 
water  and  shave  his  hair, — ceremonies  which,  in  theii" 
primary  meaning,  are  most  naturally  explained  by  the 
importance  of  an  actual  physical  cleansing  in  such  a 


3SO  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

case.  Every  possible  precaution  must  be  taken  that 
by  no  chance  he  bring  the  contagion  of  his  late  disease 
into  the  camp.  Of  what  special  importance  in  this 
connection,  besides  the  washing,  is  the  shaving  of  the 
hair,  will  be  apparent  to  all  who  know  how  peculiarly 
retentive  is  the  hair  of  odours  and  infections  of  every 
kind. 

The  cleansed  man  might  now  come  into  the  camp ; 
he  is  restored  to  his  place  as  a  living  Israelite.  And 
yet  he  may  not  come  to  the  tabernacle.  For  even  an 
Israelite  might  not  come,  if  defiled  for  the  dead ;  and 
this  is  precisely  the  leper's  status  at  this  point. 
Though  delivered  from  the  power  of  death,  there  is 
yet  persisting  such  a  connection  of  his  new  self  with 
his  old  leprous  self  as  precludes  him  from  yet  entering 
the  more  immediate  presence  of  God.  The  reality 
of  this  analog}'^  will  appear  to  any  one  who  compares 
the  rites  which  now  follow  (vv.  10-20)  with  those 
appointed  for  the  Nazarite,  when  defiled  by  the  dead 
(Numb.  vi.  9-12). 

Seven  days,  then,  as  in  that  case,  he  remains  away 
from  the  tabernacle.  On  the  seventh  day,  he  again 
shaves  himself  even  to  the  eyebrows,  thus  ensuring 
the  most  absolute  cleanness,  and  washes  himself  and 
his  clothes  in  water.  The  final  restoration  ceremonial 
took  place  on  the  eighth  day, — the  day  symbolic  of  the 
new  creation, — when  he  appeared  before  Jehovah  at 
the  tent  of  meeting  with  a  he-lamb  for  a  guilt-ofiering, 
and  another  for  a  sin-offering,  and  a  ewe-lamb  for  a 
burnt-offering ;  also  a  meal-offering  of  three  tenth- 
deals,  one  tenth  for  each  sacrifice,  mingled  with  oil,  and 
a  log  (3 '32  qts.)  of  oil.  The  oil  was  then  waved  for 
a  wave-offering  before  the  Lord,  as  also  the  whole 
lamb  of  the  guilt-offering  (an  unusual  thing),  and  then 


xiv.  1-32.]        THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  LEPER.  351 

the  lamb  was  slain  and  offered  after  the  manner  of  the 
guilt-offering. 

And  now  followed  the  most  distinctive  part  of  the 
ceremonial.  As  in  the  case  of  the  consecration  of  the 
priests  was  done  with  the  blood  of  the  peace-offering 
and  with  the  holy  oil,  so  was  it  done  here  with  the 
blood  of  the  guilt-offering  and  with  the  common  oil — 
now  by  its  waving  consecrated  to  Jehovah — which  the 
cleansed  leper  had  brought.  The  priest  anoints  the 
man's  right  ear,  the  thumb  of  his  right  hand,  and 
the  great  toe  of  his  right  foot,  first  with  the  blood  of 
the  guilt-offering,  and  then  with  the  oil,  having  pre- 
viously sprinkled  of  the  oil  seven  times  with  his  finger 
before  the  Lord.  The  remnant  of  the  oil  in  the  hand 
of  the  priest  he  then  pours  upon  the  cleansed  leper's 
head ;  then  offers  for  him  the  sin-offering,  the  burnt- 
offering,  and  the  meal-offering ;  and  therewith,  at  last, 
the  atonement  is  complete,  and  the  man  is  restored  to 
his  full  rights  and  privileges  as  a  living  member  of  the 
people  of  the  living  God. 

The  chief  significance  of  this  ceremonial  lies  in  the 
prominence  given  to  the  guilt-offering.  This  is  evi- 
denced, not  only  by  the  special  and  peculiar  use  which 
is  made  of  its  blood,  in  applying  it  to  the  leper,  but 
also  in  the  fact  that  in  the  case  of  the  poor  man,  while 
the  other  offerings  are  diminished,  there  is  no  diminu- 
tion allowed  as  regards  the  lamb  of  the  guilt-offering, 
and  the  log  of  oil.  Why  should  the  guilt-offering  have 
received  on  this  occasion  such  a  place  of  special  promi- 
nence ?  The  answer  has  been  rightly  given  by  those 
who  point  to  the  significance  of  the  guilt-offering  as 
representing  reparation  and  satisfaction  for  loss  of 
service  due.  By  the  fact  of  the  man's  leprosy,  and 
consequent  exclusion  from  the  camp  of  Israel,  God  had 


352  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

been,  for  the  whole  period  of  his  excision,  defrauded, 
so  to  speak,  of  His  proper  dues  from  him  in  respect 
of  service  and  offerings ;  and  the  guilt-offering  precisely 
symbolised  satisfaction  made  for  this  default  in  service 
which  he  had  otherwise  been  able  to  render. 

Nor  is  it  a  fatal  objection  to  this  understanding  of 
the  matter  that,  on  this  principle,  he  also  that  for  a 
long  time  had  had  an  issue  should  have  been  required, 
for  his  prolonged  default  of  service,  to  bring  a  guilt- 
offering  in  order  to  his  restoration  ;  whereas  from  him 
no  such  demand  was  made.  For  the  need,  before  the 
law,  for  the  guilt-offering  lay,  not  in  the  duration  of 
the  leprosy,  as  such  apprehend  it,  but  in  the  nature  of 
the  leprosy,  as  being,  unlike  any  other  visitation,  in 
a  peculiar  sense,  a  death  in  life.  Even  when  the  man 
with  an  issue  v/as  debarred  from  the  sanctuary,  he 
was  not,  like  the  leper,  regarded  by  the  law  as  a  dead 
man;  but  was  still  counted  among  them  that  were 
living  in  Israel.  And  if  precluded  for  an  indefinite 
time  from  the  service  and  worship  of  God  at  the 
tabernacle,  he  yet,  by  his  public  submission  to  the 
demands  of  the  law,  in  the  presence  of  all,  rendered 
still  to  God  the  honour  due  from  a  member  of  the 
living  Israel.  But  in  that  the  leper,  unlike  any  other 
defiled  person,  was  reckoned  ceremonially  dead,  obvi- 
ously consistency  in  the  symbolism  made  it  impossible 
to  regard  him  as  having  in  any  sense  rendered  honour 
or  service  to  God  so  long  as  he  continued  a  leper,  any 
more  than  if  he  had  been  dead  and  buried.  Therefore 
he  must  bring  a  guilt-offering,  as  one  who  had,  how- 
ever unavoidably,  committed  ''  a  trespass  in  the  holy 
things  of  the  Lord."  And  so  this  guilt-offering,  in  the 
case  of  the  leper,  as  in  all  others,  represented  the 
satisfaction  of  debt ;  and  as  the  reality  or  the  amount 


xiv.  1-32].        THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  LEPER.  353 

of  a  debt  cannot  be  affected  by  the  poverty  of  the 
debtor,  the  offering  which  symboHsed  satisfaction  for 
the  debt  must  be  the  same  for  the  poor  leper  as  for 
the  rich  leper. 

And  the  application  of  the  blood  to  ear,  hand,  and 
foot  meant  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  the  consecration 
of  the  priests.  Inducted,  as  one  now  risen  from  the 
dead,  into  the  number  of  the  priestly  people,  he  re- 
ceives the  priestly  consecration,  devoting  ear,  hand, 
and  foot  to  the  service  of  the  Lord.  And  as  it  was 
fitting  that  the  priests,  because  brought  into  a  relation 
of  special  nearness  to  God,  in  order  to  be  ministers  of 
reconciliation  to  Israel,  should  therefore  be  consecrated 
with  the  blood  of  the  peace-offering,  which  specially 
emphasised  the  realisation  of  reconciliation, — so  the 
cleansed  leper,  who  was  re-established  as  a  living 
member  of  the  priestly  nation,  more  especially  by  the 
blood  of  the  guilt-offering,  was  therefore  fittingly 
represented  as  consecrated  in  virtue,  and  by  means 
of  that  fact. 

So,  like  the  priests,  he  also  was  anointed  by  the 
priest  with  oil ;  not  indeed  with  the  holy  oil,  for  he 
was  not  admitted  to  the  priestly  order ;  yet  with 
common  oil,  sanctified  by  its  waving  before  God,  in 
token  of  his  consecration  as  a  member  of  the  priestly 
people.  Especially  suitable  in  his  case  was  this 
anointing,  that  the  oil  constantly  stands  as  a  symbol 
of  healing  virtue,  which  in  his  experience  he  had  so 
wondrously  received. 

Remembering  in  all  this  how  the  leprosy  stands  as  a 
pre-eminent  type  of  sin,  in  its  aspect  as  involving  death 
and  corruption,  the  application  of  these  ceremonies  to 
the  antitypical  cleansing,  at  least  in  its  chief  aspects, 
is  almost  self-evident.     As  in  all  the  Levitical  types,  so 

23 


354  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

in  this  case,  at  the  very  entrance  on  the  redeemed 
life  stands  the  sacrifice  of  a  life,  and  the  service  of  a 
priest  as  mediator  between  God  and  man.  Blood  must 
be  shed  if  the  leper  is  to  be  admitted  again  into  cove- 
nant standing  with  God  ;  and  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice 
in  the  law  ever  points  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  But 
that  great  Sacrifice  may  be  regarded  in  various  aspects. 
Sin  is  a  many-sided  evil,  and  on  every  side  it  must  be 
met.  As  often  repeated,  because  sin  as  guilt  requires 
expiation,  hence  the  type  of  the  sin-ofiering ;  in  that  it 
is  a  defrauding  of  God  of  His  just  rights  from  us,  satis- 
faction is  required,  hence  the  type  of  the  guilt-offering ; 
as  it  is  absence  of  consecration,  life  for  self  instead  of 
life  for  God,  hence  the  type  of  the  burnt-offering.  And 
yet  the  manifold  aspects  of  sin  are  not  all  enumerated. 
For  sin,  again,  is  spiritual  death ;  and,  as  death,  it 
involves  corruption  and  defilement.  It  is  with  special 
reference  to  this  fact  that  the  work  of  Christ  is  brought 
before  us  here.  In  the  clean  bird,  slain  that  its  blood 
may  be  applied  to  the  leper  for  cleansing,  we  see  typi- 
fied Christ,  as  giving  Himself,  that  His  very  life  may  be 
imparted  to  us  for  our  life.  In  that  the  blood  of  the 
bird  is  mingled  with  water,  the  symbol  of  the  Word  of 
God,  is  symbolised  the  truth,  that  with  the  atoning 
blood  is  ever  inseparably  united  the  purifying  energy 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  Word.  Not  the  water 
without  the  blood,  nor  the  blood  without  the  water, 
saves,  but  the  blood  with  the  water,  and  the  water  with 
the  blood.  So  it  is  said  of  Him  to  whom  the  cere- 
mony pointed  (i  John  v.  6):  "This  is  He  that  came 
by  water  and  blood,  even  Jesus  Christ ;  not  with  the 
w^ater  only,  but  with  the  water  and  with  the  blood." 

But  the  type  yet  lacks  something  for  completeness ; 
and  for  this  reason  we  have  the  second  bird,  who,  when 


xiv.  1-32.]         THE   CLEANSING   OF  THE  LEPER,  355 

by  his  means  the  blood  has  been  sprinkled  on  the 
leper,  and  the  man  is  now  pronounced  clean,  is  released 
and  flies  away  heavenward.  What  a  beautiful  symbol 
of  that  other  truth,  without  which  even  the  atonement 
of  the  Lord  were  nought,  that  He  who  died,  having  by 
that  death  for  us  procured  our  life,  was  then  released 
from  the  bonds  of  death,  rising  from  the  dead  on  the 
third  day,  and  ascending  to  heaven,  Hke  the  freed 
bird,  in  token  that  His  life-giving,  cleansing  work  was 
done.  Thus  the  message  which,  as  the  liberated  bird 
flies  carolling  away,  sweet  as  a  heavenly  song,  seems 
to  fall  upon  the  ear,  is  this,  "  Delivered  up  for  our 
trespasses,  and  raised  for  our  justification"  (Rom.  iv. 
25  ;  see  Gr.). 

But  although  thus  and  then  restored  to  his  standing 
as  a  member  of  the  living  people  of  God,  not  yet  was  the 
cleansed  leper  allowed  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God 
at  the  tent  of  meeting.  There  was  a  delay  of  a  week,  and 
only  then,  on  the  eighth  day,  the  day  typical  of  resur- 
rection and  new  creation,  does  He  appear  before  God. 
Is  there  typical  meaning  in  this  delay  ?  We  would  not 
be  too  confident.  It  is  quite  possible  that  this  delay 
of  a  week,  before  the  cleansed  man  was  allowed  to 
present  himself  for  the  completion  of  the  ceremonial 
which  reinstated  him  in  the  plenary  enjoyment  of  all 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  child  of  Israel,  may  have 
been  intended  merely  as  a  precautionary  rule,  of  which 
the  purpose  was  to  guard  against  the  possibility  of 
infection,  and  the  defilement  of  the  sanctuary  by  his 
presence,  through  renewed  activity  of  the  disease;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  it  would  serve  as  a  spiritual  disci- 
pline to  remind  the  man,  now  cleansed,  of  the  extreme 
care  and  holy  fear  with  which,  after  his  defilement,  he 
should  venture  into  the  presence  of  the  Holy  One  of 


3S6  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


Israel ;  and  thus,  by  analogy,  it  becomes  a  like  lesson 
to  the  spiritually  cleansed  in  all  ages. 

But  perhaps  we  may  see  a  deeper  significance  in  this 
week  of  delay,  and  his  appointed  appearance  before  the 
Lord  on  the  eighth  day.  If  the  whole  course  of  the 
leper,  from  the  time  of  his  infection  till  his  final  re- 
appearing in  the  presence  of  Jehovah  at  the  tent  of  meet- 
ing, be  intended  to  typify  the  history  and  experience 
of  a  sinner  as  saved  from  sin ;  and  if  the  cleansing  of 
the  leper  without  the  camp,  and  his  reinstatement  there- 
upon as  a  member  of  God's  Israel,  represents  in  type 
the  judicial  reinstatement  of  the  cleansed  sinner,  through 
the  application  of  the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ,  in  the 
number  of  God's  people  ;  one  can  then  hardly  fail  to 
recognise  in  the  week's  delay  appointed  to  him,  before 
he  could  come  into  the  immediate  presence  of  God,  an 
adumbration  of  the  fact  that  between  the  sinner's  accept- 
ance and  the  appointed  time  of  his  appearing,  finally 
and  fully  cleansed,  before  the  Lord,  on  the  resurrection 
morning,  there  intervenes  a  period  of  delay,  even  the 
whole  lifetime  of  the  believer  here  in  the  flesh  and  in 
the  disembodied  state.  For  only  thereafter  does  he  at 
last,  wholly  perfected,  appear  before  God  in  the  heavenly 
Zion.  But  before  thus  appearing,  the  accepted  man 
once  and  again  had  to  cleanse  his  garments  and  his 
person,  that  so  he  might  remove  everything  in  which  by 
any  chance  uncleanness  might  still  lurk.  Which,  trans- 
lated into  New  Testament  language,  gives  us  the  charge 
of  the  Apostle  Paul  (2  Cor.  vii.  i)  addressed  to  those 
who  had  indeed  received  the  new  life,  but  were  still  in  the 
flesh  :  "  Let  us  cleanse  ourselves  from  all  defilement  of 
flesh  and  spirit,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God." 

But,  at  last,  the  week  of  delay  is  ended.     After  its 
seventh  day  follows  an  eighth,  the  first-day  morning  of 


xiv.  1-32.]       THE  CLEANSING  OF  THE  LEPER.  357 

a  new  week,  the  morning  typical  of  resurrection  and 
therewith  completed  redemption,  and  the  leper  now, 
completely  restored,  appears  before  God  in  the  holy 
tabernacle.  Even  so  shall  an  eighth-day  morning 
dawn  for  all  who  by  the  cleansing  blood  have  been 
received  into  the  number  of  God's  people.  And  when 
that  day  comes,  then,  even  as  when  the  cleansed  man 
appeared  at  the  tent  of  meeting,  he  presented  guilt- 
offering,  sin-offering,  and  burnt-offering,  as  the  warrant 
for  his  presence  there,  and  the  ground  of  his  acceptance, 
so  shall  it  be  in  that  day  of  resurrection,  when  every  one 
of  God's  once  leprous  but  now  washed  and  accepted 
children  shall  appear  in  Zion  before  Him.  They  will 
all  appear  there  as  pleading  the  blood,  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ ;  Christ,  at  last  apprehended  and  re- 
ceived by  them  in  all  His  fulness,  as  expiation,  satisfac- 
tion, and  righteousness.  For  so  John  represents  it  in 
the  apocalyptic  vision  of  the  blood-washed  multitude  in 
the  heavenly  glory  (Rev.  vii.  14,  15)  :  ^' These  are  they 
which  come  out  of  the  great  tribulation,  and  they 
washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood 
of  the  Lamb.  Therefore  are  they  before  the  throne  of 
God  ;  and  they  serve  Him  day  and  night  in  His  temple." 

And  as  it  is  written  (Rom.  viii.  11)  that  the  final 
quickening  of  our  mortal  bodies  shall  be  accomplished 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  so  the  leper,  now  in  God's 
presence,  receives  a  special  anointing ;  a  type  of  the 
unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  resurrection  power,  con- 
secrating the  once  leprous  ear,  hand,  and  foot,  and 
therewith  the  whole  body,  now  cleansed  from  all  defile- 
ment, to  the  glad  service  of  Jehovah  our  God  and  our 
Redeemer. 

Such,  in  outline  at  least,  appears  to  be  the  typical 
significance  of  this  ceremonial  of  the  cleansing  of  the 


358  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS 

leper.  Some  details  are  indeed  still  left  unexplained, 
but,  probably,  the  whole  reason  for  some  of  the  regula- 
tions is  to  be  found  in  the  immediate  practical  neces- 
sities of  the  leper's  condition. 

Of  Leprosy  in  a  Garment  or  House. 

xiii.  47-59 ;  xiv.  33-53. 

"The  garment  also  that  the  plague  of  leprosy  is  in,  whether  it  be 
a  woollen  garment,  or  a  linen  garment ;  whether  it  be  in  warp,  or 
woof;  of  linen,  or   of  woollen;  whether  in  a  skin,  or  in  anything 
made  of  skin  ;  if  the  plague  be  greenish  or  reddish  in  the  garment,  or 
in  the  skin,  or  in  the  warp,  or  in  the  woof,  or  in  any  thing  of  skin ; 
it  is  the  plague  of  leprosy,  and  shall  be  shewed  unto  the  priest :  and 
the  priest  shall  look  upon  the  plague,  and  shut  up  that  which  hath  the 
plague  seven  days  :  and  he  shall  look  on  the  plague  on  the  seventh 
day  :  if  the  plague  be  spread  in  the  garment,  either  in  the  warp,  or 
in  the  woof,  or  in  the  skin,  whatever  service  skin  is  used  for ;  the 
plague  is  a  fretting  leprosy  ;  it  is  unclean.     And  he  shall  burn  the 
garment,  whether  the  warp  or  the  woof,  in  woollen  or  in  linen,  or 
any  thing  of  skin,  wherein  the  plague  is :  for  it  is  a  fretting  leprosy ; 
it  shall  be  burnt  in  the   fire.     And   if  the   priest   shall   look,    and, 
behold,  the  plague  be  not  spread  in  the  garment,  either  in  the  warp, 
or  in  the  woof,  or  in  any  thing  of  skin ;  then  the  priest  shall  com- 
mand that  they  wash  the  thing  wherein  the  plague  is,  and  he  shall 
shut  it  up  seven  days  more  :  and  the  priest  shall  look,  after  that  the 
plague  is  washed  :  and,  behold,  if  the  plague  have  not  changed  its 
colour,  and  the  plague  be  not  spread,  it  is  unclean ;  thou  shalt  burn  it 
in  the  fire  :  it  is  a  fret,  whether  the  bareness  be  within  or  without. 
And  if  the  priest  look,  and,  behold,  the  plague  be  dim  after  the  wash- 
ing thereof,  then  he  shall  rend  it  out  of  the  garment,  or  out  of  the 
skin,  or  out  of  the  warp,  or  out  of  the  woof :  and  if  it  appear  still 
in  the  garment,  either  in  the  warp,  or  in  the  woof,  or  in  any  thing 
of  skin,  it  is  breaking  out :  thou  shalt  burn  that  wherein  the  plague 
is  with  fire.     And  the  garment,  either  the  warp,  or  the  woof,  or  what- 
soever thing  ot  skin  it  be,  which  thou  shalt  wash,  if  the  plague  be 
departed  from  them,  then  it  shall  be  washed  the  second  time,  and 
shall  be  clean.    This  is  the  law  of  the  plague  of  leprosy  in  a  garment  of 
woollen  or  linen,  either  in  the  warp,  or  the  woof,  or  any  thing  of  skin, 
to  pronounce  it  clean,  or  to  pronounce  it  unclean.  ,  .  .  And  the  Lord 
spake  unto  Moses  and  unto  Aaron,  saying,  When  ye  be  come  into 
the  land  of  Canaan,  which  I  give  to  you  for  a  possession,  and  I  put 


xiii.  47-59 ;  xiv.  33-53.]     LEPROSY  IN   THINGS.  359 

the  plague  of  leprosy  in  a  house  of  the  land  of  your  possession ;  then 
he  that  owneth  the  house  shall  come  and  tell  the  priest,  saying,  There 
seemeth  to  me  to  be  as  it  were  a  plague  in  the  house  :  and  the  priest 
shall  command  that  they  empty  the  house,  before  the  priest  go  in  to 
see  the  plague,  that  all  that  is  in  the  house  be  not  made  unclean  i 
and  afterward  the  priest  shall  go  in  to  see  the  house  :  and  he  shall 
look  on  the  plague,  and,  behold,  if  the  plague  be  in  the  walls  of  the 
house  with  hollow  strakes,  greenish  or  reddish,  and  the  appearance 
thereof  be  lower  than  the  wall ;  then  the  priest  shall  go  out  of  the 
house  to  the  door  of  the  house,  and  shut  up  the  house  seven  davs  : 
and  the  priest  shall  come  again  the  seventh  day,  and  shall  look :  and, 
behold,  if  the  plague  be  spread  in  the  walls  of  the  house ;  then  the 
priest  shall  command  that  they  take  out  the  stones  in  which  the 
plague  is,  and  cast  them  into  an  unclean  place  without  the  city :  and 
he  shall  cause  the  house  to  be  scraped  within  round  about,  and  they 
shall  pour  out  the  mortar  that  they  scrape  off  without  the  city  into  an 
unclean  place  :  and  they  shall  take  other  stones,  and  put  them  in  the 
place  of  those  stones ;  and  he  shall  take  other  mortar,  and  shall 
plaister  the  house.  And  if  the  plague  come  again,  and  break  out  in 
the  house,  after  that  he  hath  taken  out  the  stones,  and  after  he  hath 
scraped  the  house,  and  alter  it  is  plaistered ;  then  the  priest  shall 
come  in  and  look,  and,  behold,  if  the  plague  be  spread  in  the  house,  it 
is  a  fretting  leprosy  in  the  house  :  it  is  unclean.  And  he  shall  break 
down  the  house,  the  stones  of  it,  and  the  timber  thereof,  and  all  the 
mortar  of  the  house ;  and  he  shall  carry  them  forth  out  of  the  city 
into  an  unclean  place.  Moreover  he  that  goeth  into  the  house  all 
the  while  that  it  is  shut  up  shall  be  unclean  until  the  even.  And  he 
that  lieth  in  the  house  shall  wash  his  clothes  ;  and  he  that  eateth  in  the 
house  shall  wash  his  clothes.  And  if  the  priest  shall  come  in,  and  look, 
and,  behold,  the  plague  hath  not  spread  in  the  house,  after  the  house  was 
plaistered  ;  then  the  priest  shall  pronounce  the  house  clean,  because 
the  plague  is  healed.  And  he  shall  take  to  cleanse  the  house  two 
birds,  and  cedar  wood,  and  scarlet,  and  hyssop :  and  he  shall  kill  one 
of  the  birds  in  an  earthen  vessel  over  running  water :  and  he  shall 
take  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  hyssop,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  living 
bird,  and  dip  them  in  the  blood  of  the  slain  bird,  and  in  the  running 
water,  and  sprinkle  the  house  seven  times :  and  he  shall  cleanse  the 
house  with  the  blood  of  the  bird,  and  with  the  running  water,  and 
with  the  living  bird,  and  with  the  cedar  wood,  and  with  the  hyssop, 
and  with  the  scarlet :  but  he  shall  let  go  the  living  bird  out  of  the 
city  into  the  open  field  :  so  shall  he  make  atonement  for  the  house  : 
and  it  shall  be  clean." 

There  has  been  much  debate  as  to  what  we  are  to 


36o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

understand  by  the  leprosy  in  the  garment  or  in  a 
house.  Was  it  an  affection  identical  in  nature  with  the 
leprosy  of  the  body  ?  or  was  it  merely  so  called  from  a 
certain  external  similarity  to  that  plague  ? 

However  extraordinary  the  former  supposition  might 
once  have  seemed,  in  the  present  state  of  medical 
science  we  are  at  least  able  to  say  that  there  is 
nothing  inconceivable  in  it.  We  have  abundant  experi- 
mental evidence  that  a  large  number  of  diseases,  and, 
not  improbably,  leprosy  among  them,  are  caused  by 
minute  parasitic  forms  of  vegetable  life;  and,  also, 
that  in  many  cases  these  forms  of  life  may,  and  do, 
exist  and  multiply  in  various  other  suitable  media 
besides  the  fluids  and  tissues  of  the  human  body. 
If,  as  is  quite  likely,  leprosy  be  caused  by  some  such 
parasitic  life  in  the  human  body,  it  is  then  evi- 
dently possible  that  such  parasites,  under  favourable 
conditions  of  heat,  moisture,  etc.,  should  exist  and 
propagate  themselves,  as  in  other  analogous  cases,  out- 
side the  body  ;  as,  for  instance,  in  cloth,  or  leather,  or 
in  the  plaster  of  a  house ;  in  which  case  it  is  plain 
that  such  garments  or  household  implements,  or  such 
dweUings,  as  might  be  thus  infected,  would  be  certainly 
unwholesome,  and  presumably  capable  of  communicat- 
ing the  leprosy  to  the  human  subject.  But  we  have 
not  yet  sufficient  scientific  observation  to  settle  the 
question  whether  this  is  really  so ;  we  can,  however, 
safely  say  that,  in  any  case,  the  description  which  is 
here  given  indicates  a  growth  in  the  affected  garment 
or  house  of  some  kind  of  mould  or  mildew  ;  which,  as 
we  know,  is  a  form  of  life  produced  under  conditions 
which  always  imply  an  unwholesome  state  of  the 
article  or  house  in  which  it  appears.  We  also  know 
that  if  such  growths  be  allowed  to  go  on  unchecked, 


xiii.47-59;xiv.33-53.]    LEPROSY  IN  THINGS.  361 

they  involve  more  or  less  rapid  processes  of  decomposi- 
tion in  that  which  is  affected.  Thus,  even  from  a 
merely  natural  point  of  view,  one  can  see  the  high 
wisdom  of  the  Divine  King  of  Israel  in  ordering  that, 
in  all  such  cases,  the  man  whose  garment  or  house  was 
thus  affected  should  at  once  notify  the  priest,  who  was 
Jo  come  and  decide  whether  the  appearance  was  of  a 
noxious  and  unclean  kind  or  not,  and  then  take  action 
accordingly. 

Whether  the  suspicious  spot  were  in  a  house  or  in 
some  article  it  contained,  the  article  or  house  (the  latter 
having  been  previously  emptied)  was  first  shut  up  for 
seven  days  (xiii.  50 ;  xiv.  38).  If  in  the  garment  or 
other  article  affected  it  was  found  then  to  have  spread, 
it  was  without  any  further  ceremony  to  be  burnt  (xiii. 
51,  52).  If  it  had  not  spread,  it  was  to  be  washed  and 
shut  up  seven  days  more,  at  the  end  of  which  time, 
even  though  it  had  not  spread,  if  the  greenish  or  reddish 
colour  remained  unchanged,  it  was  still  to  be  adjudged 
unclean,  and  to  be  burned  (xiii.  55).  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  colour  had  somewhat  "dimmed,"  the  part 
affected  was  to  be  cut  out ;  when,  if  it  spread  no  further, 
it  was  to  be  washed  a  second  time,  and  be  pronounced 
clean  (xiii.  58).  If,  however,  after  the  excision  of  the 
affected  part,  the  spot  appeared  again,  the  article, 
without  further  delay,  was  to  be  burned  (xiii.  57). 

The  law,  in  the  case  of  the  appearing  of  a  leprosy 
in  a  house  (xiv.  33-53),  was  much  more  elaborate.  As 
in  the  former  case,  when  the  occupant  of  the  house 
suspects,  "  as  it  were  a  plague  in  the  house,"  he  is  to 
go  and  tell  the  priest ;  who  is,  first  of  all,  to  order  the 
emptying  of  the  house  before  he  goes  in,  lest  that  which 
is  in  the  house,  should  it  prove  to  be  the  plague,  be 
made  unclean  (ver.  36).     The  diagnosis  reminds  us  of 


362  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

that  of  the  leprosy  in  the  body ;  greenish  or  reddish 
streaks,  in  appearance  '^  lower  than  the  wall/*  i.e.^  deep- 
seated  (ver.  37).  Where  this  is  observed,  the  empty 
house  is  to  be  shut  up  for  seven  days  (ver.  38)  ;  and 
at  the  end  of  that  time,  if  the  spot  has  spread,  '^  the 
stones  in  which  the  plague  is  "  are  to  be  taken  out,  the 
plaster  scraped  off  the  walls  of  the  house,  and  all  carried 
out  into  an  unclean  place  outside  of  the  city,  and  new 
stones  and  new  plaster  put  in  the  place  of  the  old 
(vv.  4042).  If,  after  this,  the  plague  yet  reappear,  the 
house  is  to  be  adjudged  unclean,  and  is  to  be  wholly 
torn  down,  and  all  the  material  carried  into  an  unclean 
place  without  the  city  (vv.  44,  45).  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  after  this  renewal  of  the  interior  of  the  house, 
the  spots  do  not  reappear,  the  priest  *'  shall  pronounce 
the  house  clean,  because  the  plague  is  healed  "  (ver.  48). 
But,  unlike  the  case  of  the  leprous  garment,  this  does 
not  end  the  ceremonial.  It  is  ordered  that  the  priest 
shall  take  to  cleanse  (Jit.  "  to  purge  the  house  from  sin  ") 
(ver.  49)  two  birds,  scarlet,  cedar,  and  hyssop,  which 
are  then  used  precisely  as  in  the  case  of  the  purgation 
of  the  leprous  man;  and  at  the  end,  "he  shall  let  go 
the  living  bird  out  of  the  city  into  the  open  field  :  so 
shall  he  make  atonement  for  the  house  :  and  it  shall 
be  clean"  (vv.  50-53). 

For  the  time  then  present,  one  can  hardly  fail  to  see 
in  this  ceremonial,  first,  a  merciful  sanitary  intent.  By 
the  observance  of  these  regulations  not  only  was  Israel 
to  be  saved  from  many  sicknesses  and  various  evils, 
but  was  to  be  constantly  reminded  that  Israel's  God,  like 
a  wise  and  kind  Father,  had  a  care  for  everything  that 
pertained  to  their  welfare ;  not  only  for  their  persons, 
but  also  for  their  dwellings,  and  even  all  the  various 
articles  of  daily  use.      The  lesson  is  always  in  force, 


xiii.  47-59  ;xiv.  33-53-]    LEPROSY  IN  THINGS.  363 


for  God  has  not  changed.  He  is  not  a  God  who  cares 
for  the  souls  of  men  only,  but  for  their  bodies  also,  and 
everything  around  them.  His  servants  do  well  to  re- 
member this,  and  in  this  imitate  Him,  as  happily  many 
are  doing  more  and  more.  Bibles  and  tracts  are  good, 
and  religious  exhortation ;  but  we  have  here  left  us  a 
Divine  warrant  not  to  content  ourselves  with  these 
things  alone,  but  to  have  a  care  for  the  clothing  and 
the  homes  of  those  we  would  reach  with  the  Gospel.  In 
all  the  large  cities  of  Christendom  it  must  be  confessed 
that  the  principle  which  underlies  these  laws  concern- 
ing houses  and  garments,  is  often  terribly  neglected. 
Whether  the  veritable  plague  of  leprosy  be  in  the 
walls  of  many  of  our  tenement  houses  or  not,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  it  could  not  be  much  worse  if  it  were ; 
and  Christian  philanthropy  and  legislation  could  scarcely 
do  better  in  many  cases  than  vigorously  to  enforce  the 
Levitical  law,  tear  down,  re-plaster,  or,  in  many  cases, 
destroy  from  the  foundation,  tenement  houses,  which 
could,  with  little  exaggeration,  be  justly  described  as 
leprous  throughout. 

But  all  which  is  in  this  law  cannot  be  thus  explained. 
Even  the  Israelite  must  have  looked  beyond  this  for 
the  meaning  of  the  ordinance  of  the  two  birds,  the  cedar, 
scarlet,  and  hyssop,  and  the  '^  atonement  "  for  the  house. 
He  would  have  easily  perceived  that  not  only  leprosy 
in  the  body,  but  this  leprosy  in  the  garment  and  the 
house,  was  a  sign  that  both  the  man  himself,  and  his 
whole  environment  as  well,  was  subject  to  death  and 
decay ;  that,  as  already  he  would  have  learned  from  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  even  nature  was  under  a  curse  because 
of  man's  sin  ;  and  that,  as  in  the  Divine  plan,  sacrificial 
cleansing  was  required  for  the  deliverance  of  man,  so 
also   it  was   somehow  mysteriously  required   for   the 


364  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

cleansing  of  his  earthly  abode  and  surroundings,  in 
default  of  which  purgation  they  must  be  destroyed. 

And  from  this  to  the  antitypical  truth  prefigured  by 
these  laws  it  is  but  a  step  ;  and  a  step  which  we  take 
with  full  New  Testament  light  to  guide  us.  For  if  the 
leprosy  in  the  body  visibly  typified  the  working  of  sin 
and  death  in  the  soul  of  man,  then,  as  clearly,  the  leprosy 
in  the  house  must  in  this  law  be  intended  to  symbolise 
the  working  of  sin  in  the  material  earthly  creation, 
which  is  man's  abode.  The  type  thus  brings  before  us 
the  truth  which  is  set  forth  by  the  Apostle  Paul  in 
Rom.  viii.  20-22,  where  we  are  taught  in  express  words 
that,  not  man  alone,  but  the  whole  creation  also, 
because  of  sin,  has  come  under  a  "  bondage  of  corrup- 
tion. "  **  The  creation  was  subjected  to  vanity,  not  of  its 
own  will,  but  by  reason  of  him  who  subjected  it.  .  .  . 
For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth  and 
travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now."  This  is  one 
truth  which  is  shadowed  forth  in  this  type. 

But  the  type  also  shows  us  how,  as  Scripture  else- 
where clearly  teaches,  if  after  such  partial  purgation  as 
was  effected  by  means  of  the  deluge  the  bondage  of 
corruption  still  persist,  then  the  abode  of  man  must  itself 
be  destroyed ;  "  the  earth  and  the  works  that  are  therein 
shall  be  burned  up  "  (2  Peter  iii.  10).  Nothing  less  than 
fire  will  suffice  to  put  an  end  to  the  working  in  material 
nature  of  this  mysterious  curse.  And  yet  beyond  the 
fire  is  redemption.  For  the  atonement  shall  avail  not 
only  for  the  leprous  man,  but  for  the  purifying  of  the 
leprous  abode.  The  sprinkling  of  sacrificial  blood  and 
water  by  means  of  the  cedar,  and  hyssop,  and  scarlet, 
and  the  living  bird,  which  effected  the  deliverance  of 
the  leper,  are  used  also  in  the  same  way  and  for  the 
same  end,  for  the  leprous  house.     And  so  "  according 


xiii.  47-59  ;xiv.  33-550    LEPROSY  IN  THINGS.  365 

to  his  promise,  we  look  for  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness  "  (2  Peter  iii.  1 3)  ; 
and  it  shall  be  brought  in  through  the  virtue  of  atone- 
ment made  by  a  Saviour  slain,  and  applied  by  a  Saviour 
alive  from  the  dead ;  so  that,  as  the  free  bird  flies  away 
in  token  of  the  full  completion  of  deliverance  from  the 
curse,  so  "  the  creation  itself  also  shall  be  delivered 
from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  liberty  of  the 
glory  of  the  children  of  God"  (Rom.  viii.  21). 

But  there  was  also  a  leprosy  of  the  garment.  If  the 
leprosy  in  the  body  typified  the  effect  of  sin  in  the  soul, 
and  the  leprosy  in  the  house,  the  effect  of  sin  in  the 
earthly  creation,  which  is  man's  home  ;  the  leprosy  of 
the  garment  can  scarcely  typify  anything  else  than  the 
presence  and  effects  of  sin  in  those  various  relations  in 
life  which  constitute  our  present  environment.  When- 
ever, in  any  of  these,  we  suspect  the  working  of  sin, 
first  of  all  we  are  to  lay  the  case  before  the  heavenly 
Priest.  And  then,  if  He  with  the  "  eyes  like  a  flame 
of  fire"  (Rev.  i.  14;  ii.  18)  declare  anything  unclean, 
then  that  in  v^^hich  the  stain  is  found  must  be  without 
hesitation  cut  out  and  thrown  away.  And  if  still,  after 
this,  we  find  the  evil  reappearing,  then  the  whole  gar- 
ment must  go,  fair  and  good  though  the  most  of  it  may 
still  appear.  In  other  words,  those  relations  and  engage- 
ments in  which,  despite  all  possible  care  and  precaution, 
we  find  manifest  sin  persistently  reappearing,  as  if  there 
were  in  them,  however  inexplicably,  an  ineradicable 
tendency  to  evil, — these  we  must  resolutely  put  away, 
"  hating  even  the  garment  spotted  by  the  flesh." 

The  leprous  garment  must  be  burnt.  For  its  restora- 
tion or  purification  the  law  made  no  provision.  For 
here,  in  the  antitype,  we  are  dealing  with  earthly 
relationships,  which  have  only  to  do  with  the  present 


366  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

life  and  order.  "  The  fashion  of  this  world  passeth 
away  "  (i  Cor.  vii.  31).  There  shall  be  '^  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth/'  but  in  that  new  creation  the  old 
environment  shall  be  found  no  longer.  The  old  gar- 
ments, even  such  as  were  best,  shall  be  no  longer 
used.  The  redeemed  shall  walk  with  the  King  and 
Redeemer,  clothed  in  the  white  robes  which  He  shall 
give.  No  more  leprosy  then  in  person,  house,  or 
garment  !  For  we  shall  be  set  before  the  presence  of 
the  Father's  glory,  without  blemish,  in  exceeding  joy, 
"not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing." 
Wherefore  "to  the  only  God  our  Saviour,  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  be  glory,  majesty,  dominion 
and  power,  before  all  time,  and  now,  and  for  evermore. 
Amen. 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

OF  HOLINESS  IN  EATING, 
Lev.  xvii.   1-16. 

WITH  this  chapter  begins  another  subdivision  of 
the  law.  Hitherto  we  have  had  before  us  only 
sacrificial  worship  and  matters  of  merely  ceremonial 
law.  The  law  of  holy  Hving  contained  in  the  following 
chapters  (xvii.-xx.),  on  the  other  hand,  has  to  do  for 
the  most  part  with  matters  rather  ethical  than  cere- 
monial, and  consists  chiefly  of  precepts  designed  to 
regulate  morally  the  ordinary  engagements  and  relation- 
ships of  every-day  life.  The  fundamental  thought  of 
the  four  chapters  is  that  which  is  expressed,  e.g.y  in 
xviii.  3  :  Israel,  redeemed  by  Jehovah,  is  called  to  be  a 
holy  people ;  and  this  holiness  is  to  be  manifested  in  a 
total  separation  from  the  ways  of  the  heathen.  This 
principle  is  enforced  by  various  specific  commands  and 
prohibitions,  which  naturally  have  particular  regard  to 
the  special  conditions  under  which  Israel  was  placed, 
as  a  holy  nation  consecrated  to  Jehovah,  the  one,  true 
God,  but  living  in  the  midst  of  nations  of  idolaters. 

The  whole  of  chapter  xvii.,  with  the  exception  of 
vv.  8,  9,  has  to  do  with  the  application  of  this  law  of 
holy  living  to  the  use  even  of  lawful  food.  At  first 
thought,  the  injunctions  of  the  chapter  might  seem  to 
belong  rather  to  ceremonial   than  to  moral  law;  but 


368  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

closer  observation  will  show  that  all  the  injunctions 
here  given  have  direct  reference  to  the  avoidance  of 
idolatry,  especially  as  connected  with  the  preparation 
and  use  of  food. 

It  was  not  enough  that  the  true  Israelite  should 
abstain  from  food  prohibited  by  God,  as  in  chap.  xii. ; 
he  must  also  use  that  which  was  permitted  in  a  way 
well-pleasing  to  God,  carefully  shunning  even  the 
appearance  of  any  complicity  with  surrounding  idolatry, 
or  fellowship  with  the  heathen  in  their  unholy  fashions 
and  customs.  Even  so  for  the  Christian :  it  is  not 
enough  that  he  abstain  from  what  is  expressly  for- 
bidden ;  even  in  his  use  of  lawful  food,  he  must  so  use 
it  that  it  shall  be  to  him  a  means  of  grace,  in  helping 
him  to  maintain  an  uninterrupted  walk  with  God. 

In  vv.  1-7  is  given  the  law  to  regulate  the  use  of 
such  clean  animals  for  food  as  could  be  offered  to  God 
in  sacrifice ;  in  vv.  10-16,  of  such  as,  although  permitted 
for  food,  were  not  allowed  for  sacrifice. 

The  directions  regarding  the  first  class  may  be  summed 
up  in  this :  all  such  animals  were  to  be  treated  as  peace- 
offerings.  No  private  person  in  Israel  was  to  slaughter 
any  such  animal  anywhere  in  the  camp  or  out  of  it, 
except  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting.  Thither 
they  were  to  be  brought  **  unto  the  priest,"  and  offered 
for  peace-offerings  (ver.  5) ;  the  blood  must  be  sprinkled 
on  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  ;  the  fat  parts  burnt  **  for  a 
sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord  "  (ver.  6)  ;  and  then  only, 
the  priest  having  first  taken  his  appointed  portions,  the 
remainder  might  now  be  eaten  by  the  Israelite,  as 
given  back  to  him  by  God,  in  peaceful  fellowship  with 
Him. 

The  law  could  not  have  been  burdensome,  as  some 
might  hastily  imagine.     Even  when  obtainable,  meat 


xvii.i-i6.]  HOLINESS  IN  EATING.  369 


was  probably  not  used  as  food  by  them  so  freely  as 
with  us ;  and  in  the  wilderness  the  lack  of  flesh,  it  will 
be  remembered,  was  so  great  as  to  have  occasioned  at 
one  time  a  rebellion  among  the  people,  who  fretfully 
complained  (Numb.  xi.  4)  :  ''  Who  shall  give  us  flesh  to 
eat  ?  " 

Even  the  uncritical  reader  must  be  able  to  see  how 
manifest  is  the  Mosaic  date  of  this  part  of  Leviticus. 
The  terms  of  this  law  suppose  a  camp-life ;  indeed,  the 
camp  is  explicitly  named  (ver.  3).  That  which  was  en- 
joined was  quite  practicable  under  the  conditions  of  life 
in  the  wilderness,  when,  at  the  best,  flesh  was  scarce, 
and  the  people  dwelt  compactly  together ;  but  would 
have  been  utterly  inapplicable  and  impracticable  at  a 
later  date,  after  they  were  settled  throughout  the  land 
of  Canaan,  when  to  have  slaughtered  all  beasts  used 
for  food  at  the  central  sanctuary  would  have  been 
impossible.  Hence  we  find  that,  as  we  should  expect, 
the  modified  law  of  Deuteronomy  (xii.  15,  16,  20-24), 
assuming  the  previous  existence  of  this  earlier  law, 
explicitly  repeals  it.  To  suppose  that  forgers  of  a  later 
day,  as,  for  instance,  of  the  time  of  Josiah,  or  after  the 
Babylonian  exile,  should  have  needlessly  invented  a 
law  of  this  kind,  is  an  hypothesis  which  is  rightly 
characterised  by  Dillmann  as  "  simply  absurd."  ^ 

This  regulation  for  the  wilderness  days  is  said 
(vv.  5,  7)  to  have  been  made  "to  the  end  that  the 
children  of  Israel  may  bring  their  sacrifices,  which  they 
sacrifice  in  the  open  field  .  .  .  unto  the  Lord,  .  .  .  and 
sacrifice  them  for  sacrifices  of  peace  offerings  unto  the 
Lord.  .  .  .  And  they  shall  no  more  sacrifice  their  sacri- 
fices unto  the  he-goats,  after  whom  they  go  a  whoring." 

*  "  Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  2  Aufl.,  p.  535. 

24 


370  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  last  sentence,  "  he- 
goats,"  as  in  the  Revised  Version,  instead  of  *^  devils," 
as  in  the  Authorised,  is  the  right  rendering.  The  worship 
referred  to  was  still  in  existence  in  the  days  of  the 
monarchy ;  for  it  is  included  in  the  charges  against 
"  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to  sin  " 
(2  Chron.  xi.  15),  that  "he  appointed  him  priests,  .  .  . 
for  the  he-goats,  and  for  the  calves  which  he  had 
made."  Nor  can  here  we  agree  with  Dillmann^  that 
in  this  worship  of  he-goats  here  referred  to,  there  is 
"  no  occasion  to  think  of  the  goat-worship  of  Egypt." 
For  inasmuch  as  we  know  that  the  worship  of  the 
sacred  bull  and  that  of  the  he-goat  prevailed  in  Egypt  in 
those  days,  and  inasmuch  as  in  Ezekiel  xx.  6,  7,  15-18, 
repeated  reference  is  made  to  Israel's  having  worshipped 
"  the  idols  of  Egypt,"  one  can  hardly  avoid  combining 
these  two  facts,  and  thus  connecting  the  goat-worship 
to  which  allusion  is  here  made,  with  that  which  pre- 
vailed at  Mendes,  in  Lower  Egypt.  This  cult  at  that 
place  was  accompanied  with  nameless  revolting  rites, 
such  as  give  special  significance  to  the  description  of 
this  worship  (ver.  7)  as  "  a  whoring  "  after  the  goats ; 
and  abundantly  explain  and  justify  the  severity  of  the 
penalty  attached  to  the  violation  of  this  law  (ver.  4)  in 
cutting  off  the  offender  from  this  people ;  all  the  more 
when  we  observe  the  fearful  persistency  of  this  horrible 
goat-worship  in  Israel,  breaking  out  anew,  as  just 
remarked,  some  five  hundred  years  later,  in  the  reign 
of  Jeroboam. 

The  words  imply  that  the  ordinary  slaughter  of 
animals  for  food  was  often  connected  with  some  idola- 
trous ceremony  related   to  this  goat-worship.      What 

'  "  Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  2  Aufl.,  p.  537. 


xvii.i-i6.]  HOLINESS  IN  EATING.  371 

precisely  it  may  have  been,  we  know  not ;  but  of  such 
customs,  connecting  the  preparation  of  the  daily  food 
with  idolatry,  w^e  have  abundant  illustration  in  the 
usages  of  the  ancient  Persians,  the  Hindoos,  and  the 
heathen  Arabs  of  the  days  before  Mohammed.  The  law 
was  thus  intended  to  cut  out  this  every-day  idolatry 
by  the  root.  With  these  "field-devils,"  as  Luther 
renders  the  word,  the  holy  people  of  the  Lord  were  to 
have  nothing  to  do. 

Very  naturally,  the  requirement  to  present  all 
slaughtered  animals  as  peaccTofferings  to  Jehovah 
gives  occasion  to  turn  aside  for  a  little  from  the  matter 
of  food,  which  is  the  chief  subject  of  the  chapter,  in 
order  to  extend  this  principle  beyond  animals  slaughtered 
for  food,  and  insist  particularly  that  all  burnt-offerings 
and  sacrifices  of  every  kind  should  be  sacrificed  at  the 
door  of  the  tent  of  meeting,  and  nowhere  else.  This 
law,  we  are  told  (ver.  8),  was  to  be  applied,  not  only 
to  the  Israelites  themselves,  but  also  to  "  strangers  " 
among  them ;  such  as,  e.g.^  were  the  Gibeonites.  No 
idolatry,  nor  anything  likely  to  be  associated  with 
it,  was  to  be  tolerated  from  any  one  in  the  holy 
camp. 

The  principle  which  underlies  this  stringent  law,  as 
also  the  reason  which  is  given  for  it,  is  of  constant 
application  in  modern  life.  There  was  nothing  wrong 
in  itself  in  slaying  an  animal  in  one  place  more  than 
another.  It  was  abstractly  possible — as,  likely  enough, 
many  an  Israelite  may  have  said  to  himself — that  a 
man  could  just  as  really  '^  eat  unto  the  Lord  "  if  he 
slaughtered  and  ate  his  animal  in  the  field,  as  any- 
where else.  Nevertheless  this  was  forbidden  under 
the  heaviest  penalties.  It  teaches  us  that  he  who  will 
be  holy  must  not  only  abstain  from  that  which  is  in 


372  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

itself  always  wrong,  but  must  carefully  keep  himself 
from  doing  even  lawful  or  necessary  things  in  such  a 
way,  or  under  such  associations  and  circumstances,  as 
may  outwardly  compromise  his  Christian  standing,  or 
which  may  be  proved  by  experience  to  have  an  almost 
unavoidable  tendency  toward  sin.  The  laxity  in  such 
matters  which  prevails  in  the  so-called  "Christian 
world  "  argues  little  for  the  tone  of  spiritual  life  in  our 
day  in  those  who  indulge  in  it,  or  allow  it,  or  apolo- 
gise for  it.  It  may  be  true  enough,  in  a  sense,  that  as 
many  say,  there  is  no  harm  in  this  or  that.  Perhaps 
not ;  but  what  if  experience  have  shown  that,  though 
in  itself  not  sinful,  a  certain  associationor  amusement 
almost  always  tends  to  worldliness,  which  is  a  form  of 
idolatry  ?  Or — to  use  the  apostle's  illustration — what  if 
one  be  seen,  though  with  no  intention  of  wrong,  "  sitting 
at  meat  in  an  idol's  temple,"  and  he  whose  conscience 
is  weak  be  thereby  emboldened  to  do  what  to  him  is 
sin  ?  There  is  only  one  safe  principle,  now  as  in  the 
days  of  Moses :  everything  must  be  brought  "  before 
the  Lord ; "  used  as  from  Him  and  for  Him,  and  there- 
fore used  under  such  limitations  and  restrictions  as  His 
wise  and  holy  law  imposes.  Only  so  shall  we  be  safe  ; 
only  so  abide  in  living  fellowship  with  God. 

Very  beautiful  and  instructive,  again,  was  the  direc- 
tion that  the  Israelite,  in  the  cases  specified,  should 
make  his  daily  food  a  peace-offering.  This  involved 
a  dedication  of  the  daily  tood  to  the  Lord  ;  and  in  his 
receiving  it  back  again  then  from  the  hand  of  God,  the 
truth  was  visibly  represented  that  our  daily  food  is 
from  God  ;  while  also,  in  the  sacrificial  acts  which  pre- 
ceded the  eating,  the  Israelite  was  continually  reminded 
that  it  was  upon  the  ground  of  an  accepted  atonement 
that   even    these    every-day    mercies    were    received. 


xvii.  i-i6.]  HOLINESS  IN  EATING.  373 

Such  also  should  be,  in  spirit,  the  often  neglected  prayer 
before  each  of  our  daily  meals.  It  should  be  ever  offered 
with  the  remembrance  ot  the  precious  blood  which  has 
purchased  for  us  even  the  most  common  mercies  ;  and 
should  thus  sincerely  recognise  what,  in  the  confusing 
complexity  of  the  second  causes  through  which  we 
receive  our  daily  food,  we  so  easily  forget :  that  the 
Lord's  prayer  is  not  a  mere  form  of  words  when  we 
say,  '^  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread ; "  but  that 
working  behind,  and  in,  and  with,  all  these  second 
causes,  is  the  kindly  Providence  of  God,  who,  opening 
His  hand,  supplies  the  want  of  every  living  thing.  And 
so,  eating  in  grateful,  loving  fellowship  with  our 
Heavenly  Father  that  which  His  bounty  gives  us,  to 
His  glory,  every  meal  shall  become,  as  it  were,  a  sacra- 
mental remembrance  of  the  Lord.  We  may  have  won- 
dered at  what  we  have  read  of  the  world-wide  custom 
of  the  Mohammedan,  who,  whenever  the  knife  of 
slaughter  is  lifted  against  a  beast  for  food,  utters  his 
**  Btsm  allah"  *'  In  the  name  of  the  most  merciful  God ;  '* 
and  not  otherwise  will  regard  his  food  as  being  made 
halal,  or  '*  lawful ; "  and,  no  doubt,  in  all  this,  as  in 
many  a  Christian's  prayer,  there  may  often  be  little 
heart.  But  the  thought  in  this  ceremony  is  even  this 
of  Leviticus,  and  we  do  well  to  make  it  our  own,  eating 
even  our  daily  food  "  in  the  name  of  the  most  merciful 
God,"  and  with  uplifting  of  the  heart  in  thankful  worship 
toward  Him. 

But  there  were  many  beasts  which,  although  they 
might  not  be  offered  to  the  Lord  in  sacrifice,  were  yet 
**  clean,"  and  permitted  to  the  Israelites  as  food.  Such, 
in  particular,  were  clean  animals  that  are  taken  in  the 
hunt  or  chase.  In  vv.  10-16  the  law  is  given  for  the 
use  of  these.     It  is  prefaced  by  a  very  full  and  explicit 


374  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

prohibition  of  the  eating  of  blood  ;^  for  while,  as  regards 
the  animals  to  be  offered  to  the  Lord,  provision  was 
made  with   respect   to   the    blood,  that    it  was   to    be 
sprinkled  around  the  altar,  there  was  the  danger  that 
in  other  cases,  where  this  was  not  permissible,  the  blood 
might  be  used  for  food.     Hence  the  prohibition  against 
eating  *'  any  manner  of  blood,"  on  a  twofold  ground  : 
first  (w.  II,  14),  that  the  Hfe  of  the  flesh  is  the  blood; 
and   second  (ver.   11),  that,  for  this  reason,  God  had 
chosen  the  blood  to  be  the  symbol  of  life  substituted 
for  the  life  of  the  guilty  in  atoning  sacrifice :  ^*  I  have 
given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  atonement  for 
your  souls."     Hence,  in  order  that  this  relation  of  the 
blood  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins  might  be  constantly 
kept  before  the  mind,  it  was  ordained  that  never  should 
the  Israelite  eat  of  flesh  except  the  blood  should  first 
have  been  carefully  drained  out.     And  it  was  to  be 
treated  with  reverence,  as  having  thus  a  certain  sanc- 
tity ;  when  the  beast  was  taken  in  hunting,  the  Israelite 
must  (ver.  13)  ^'pour  out  the  blood  thereof,  and  cover 
it  with  dust ; " — an  act  by  which  the  blood,  the  life,  was 
symbolically  returned  to   Him   who  in  the  beginning 
said  (Gen.  i.  24),  "  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the  living 
creature  after  its  kind."     And  because,  in  the  case  of 
''  that  which  dieth  of  itself,"  or  is  ''  torn  of  beasts,"  the 
blood  would  not  be  thus  carefully  drained  off,  all  such 
animals  (ver.  15)  are  prohibited  as  food. 

It  is  profoundly  instructive  to  observe  that  here, 
again,  we  come  upon  declarations  and  a  command,  the 
deep  truth  and  fitness  of  which  is  only  becoming  clear 

These  verses  have  been  partially  expounded,  indeed,  before,  in  so 
far  as  was  necessary  to  a  complete  exposition  of  the  sin-offering ;  but 
in  this  context  the  subject  is  brought  forward  in  another  relation, 
which  renders  necessary  this  additional  exposition. 


xv4i.i-i6.]  HOLINESS  IN  EATING.  375 

now  after  three  thousand  years.  For,  as  the  result  of 
our  modern  discoveries  with  regard  to  the  constitution 
of  the  blood,  and  the  exact  nature  of  its  functions,  we 
in  this  day  are  able  to  say  that  it  is  not  far  from  a 
scientific  statement  of  the  facts,  when  we  read  (ver  14), 
"  As  to  the  life  of  all  flesh,  the  blood  thereof  is  all  one 
with  the  life  thereof."  For  it  is  in  just  this  respect  that 
the  blood  is  most  distinct  from  all  other  parts  of  the 
body ;  that,  whereas  it  conveys  and  mediates  nourish- 
ment to  all,  it  is  itself  nourished  by  none  ;  but  by  its 
myriad  cells  brought  immediately  in  contact  with  the 
digested  food,  directly  and  immediately  assimilates  it  to 
itself.  We  are  compelled  to  say  that  as  regards  the 
physical  life  of  man — which  alone  is  signified  by  the 
oiiginal  term  here — it  is  certainly  true  of  the  blood,  as 
of  no  other  part  of  the  organism,  that  "  the  life  of  all 
flesh  is  the  blood  thereof." 

And  while  it  is  true  that,  according  to  the  text,  a 
spiritual  and  moral  reason  is  given  for  the  prohibition 
of  the  use  of  blood  as  food,  yet  it  is  well  worth  noting 
that,  as  has  been  already  remarked  in  another  connec- 
tion, the  prohibition,  as  we  are  now  beginning  to  see, 
had  also  a  hygienic  reason.  For  Dr.  de  Mussy,  in  his 
paper  before  the  French  Academy  of  Medicine  already 
referred  to,^  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that,  not  only 
did  the  Mosaic  laws  exclude  from  the  Hebrew  dietary 
animals  •* particularly  liable  to  parasites;"  but  also  that 
**  it  is  in  the  blood,"  so  rigidly  prohibited  by  Moses  as 
food,  "  that  the  germs  or  spores  of  infectious  disease 
circulate."  Surely  no  one  need  fear,  with  some  exposi- 
tors, lest  this  recognition  of  a  sanitary  intent  in  these 
laws  shall  hinder  the  recognition  of  their  moral  and 

'  See  p.  292. 


376  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

spiritual  purport,  which  in  this  chapter  is  so  expressly 
taught.  Rather  should  this  cause  us  the  more  to  wonder 
and  admire  the  unity  which  thus  appears  between  the 
demands  and  necessities  of  the  physical  and  the  moral 
and  spiritual  life ;  and,  in  the  discovery  of  the  marvellous 
adaptation  of  these  ancient  laws  to  the  needs  of  both,  to 
find  a  new  confirmation  of  our  faith  in  God  and  in  His 
revealed  Word.  For  thus  do  they  appear  to  be  laws 
so  far  beyond  the  wisdom  of  that  time,  and  so  surely 
beneficent  in  their  working,  that  in  view  of  this  it  should 
be  easy  to  believe  that  it  must  indeed  have  been  the 
Lord  God,  the  Maker  and  Preserver  of  all  flesh,  who 
spake  all  these  laws  unto  His  servant  Moses. 

The  moral  and  spiritual  purpose  of  this  law  concern- 
ing the  use  of  blood  was  apparently  twofold.  In  the 
first  place,  it  was  intended  to  educate  the  people  to  a 
reverence  for  life,  and  purify  them  from  that  tendency 
to  bloodthirstiness  which  has  so  often  distinguished 
heathen  nations,  and  especially  those  with  whom  Israel 
was  to  be  brought  in  closest  contact.  But  secondly, 
and  chiefly,  it  was  intended,  as  in  the  former  part  of 
the  chapter,  everywhere  and  always  to  keep  before  the 
mind  the  sacredness  of  the  blood  as  being  the  appointed 
means  for  the  expiation  of  sin ;  given  by  God  upon  the 
altar  to  make  atonement  for  the  soul  of  the  sinner,  "  by 
reason  of  the  life  "  or  soul  with  which  it  stood  in  such 
immediate  relation.  Not  only  were  they  therefore  to 
abstain  from  the  blood  of  such  animals  as  could  be 
offered  on  the  altar,  but  even  from  that  of  those  which 
could  not  be  offered.  Thus  the  blood  was  to  remind 
them,  every  time  that  they  ate  flesh,  of  the  very  solemn 
truth  that  without  shedding  of  blood  there  was  no 
remission  of  sin.  The  Israelite  must  never  forget  this ; 
even  in  the  heat  and  excitement  oi  the  chase,  he  must 


XVU.I-I6.]  HOLINESS  IN  EATING.  377 

pause  and  carefully  drain  the  blood  from  the  creature 
he  had  slain,  and  reverently  cover  it  with  dust; — a 
symbolic  act  which  should  ever  put  him  in  mind  of  the 
Divine  ordinance  that  the  blood,  the  life,  of  a  guilt- 
less victim  must  be  given,  in  order  to  the  forgiveness 
of  sin. 

A  lesson  lies  here  for  us  regarding  the  sacredness  of 
all  that  is  associated  with  sacred  things.  All  that  is 
connected  with  God,  and  with  His  worship,  especially 
all  that  is  connected  with  His  revelation  of  Himself  for 
our  salvation,  is  to  be  treated  with  the  most  profound 
reverence.  Even  though  the  blood  of  the  deer  killed 
in  the  chase  could  not  be  used  in  sacrifice,  yet,  because 
it  was  blood,  was  in  its  essential  nature  like  unto  that 
which  was  so  used,  therefore  it  must  be  treated  with 
a  certain  respect,  and  be  always  covered  with  earth.  It 
is  the  fashion  of  our  age — and  one  which  is  increasing 
in  an  alarming  degree — to  speak  lightly  of  things  which 
are  closely  connected  with  the  revelation  and  worship 
of  the  holy  God.  Against  everything  of  this  kind  the 
spirit  of  this  law  warns  us.  Nothing  which  is  asso- 
ciated in  any  way  with  what  is  sacred  is  to  be  spoken 
ot  or  treated  irreverently,  lest  we  thus  come  to  think 
lightly  of  the  sacred  things  themselves.  This  irreverent 
treatment  of  holy  things  is  a  crying  evil  in  many  parts 
of  the  EngHsh-speaking  world,  as  also  in  continental 
Christendom.  We  need  to  beware  of  it.  After  irre- 
verence, too  often,  by  no  obscure  law,  comes  open 
denial  of  the  Holy  One  and  of  His  holy  Son,  our  Lord 
and  Saviour.  The  blood  of  Christ,  which  represented 
that  holy  life  which  was  given  on  the  cross  for  our  sins, 
is  holy — an  infinitely  holy  thing !  And  what  is  God's 
estimate  of  its  sanctity  we  may  perhaps  learn — looking 
through   the  symbol  to  that  which  was  symbolised — 


378  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


from  this  law ;  which  required  that  all  blood,  because 
outwardly  resembling  the  holy  blood  of  sacrifice,  and, 
like  it,  the  seat  and  vehicle  of  life,  should  be  treated 
with  most  careful  reverence.  And  it  is  safe  to  say  that 
just  those  most  need  the  lesson  taught  by  this  com- 
mand who  find  it  the  hardest  to  appreciate  it,  and  to 
whom  its  injunctions  still  seem  regulations  puerile  and 
unworthy,  according  to  their  fancy,  of  the  dignity  and 
majesty  of  God. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS:   CHASTITY, 
Lev.  xviii.  1-30. 

CHAPTERS  xviii.,  xix.,  and  xx.,  by  a  formal  in- 
troduction (xviii.  1-5)  and  a  formal  closing  (xx. 
22-26),  are  indicated  as  a  distinct  section,  very  commonly 
known  by  the  name,  ^'  the  Law  of  Holiness."  As  this 
phrase  indicates,  these  chapters — unlike  chap,  xvii., 
which  as  to  its  contents  has  a  character  intermediate 
between  the  ceremonial  and  moral  law — consist  substan- 
tially of  moral  prohibitions  and  commandments  through- 
out. Of  the  three,  the  first  two  contain  the  prohibitions 
and  precepts  of  the  law;  the  third  (xx.),  the  penal 
sanctions  by  which  many  of  these  were  to  be  enforced. 
The  section  opens  (vv.  I,  2)  with  Jehovah's  assertion 
of  His  absolute  supremacy,  and  a  reminder  to  Israel  of 
the  fact  that  He  had  entered  into  covenant  relations 
with  them  :  ^^  I  am  the  Lord  your  God."  With  solemn 
emphasis  the  words  are  again  repeated,  ver.  4 ;  and  yet 
again  in  ver.  5  :  '^  I  am  the  Lord."^     They  would  natu- 

*  It  deserves  to  be  noticed  that  in  this  phrase,  which  recurs  with 
such  frequency  in  this  "  Law  of  Holiness,"  the  original,  with 
evident  allusion  to  Exod.  iii.  15;  vi.  2-4,  always  has  the  covenant 
name  of  God,  commonly  anglicised  "Jehovah."  The  retention  of  the 
term  "  Lord  "  here,  as  in  many  other  places,  is  much  to  be  regretted* 
as  seriously  weakening  and  obscuring  the  sense  to  the  ordinary  reader. 


38o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

rally  call  to  mind  the  scene  at  Sinai,  with  its  august  and 
appalling  grandeur,  attesting  amid  earthquake  and  fire 
and  tempest  at  once  the  being,  power,  and  unapproach- 
able holiness  of  Him  who  then  and  there,  with  those 
stupendous  solemnities,  in  inexplicable  condescension, 
took  Israel  into  covenant  with  Himself,  to  be  to  Himself 
*'  a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation."  There  could 
be  no  question  as  to  the  right  of  the  God  thus  revealed 
to  impose  law ;  no  question  as  to  the  peculiar  obligation 
upon  Israel  to  keep  His  law ;  no  question  as  to  His 
intolerance  of  sin,  and  full  power  and  determination, 
as  the  Holy  One,  to  enforce  whatever  He  commanded. 
All  these  thoughts — thoughts  of  eternal  moment — 
would  be  called  up  in  the  mind  of  every  devout  Israelite, 
as  he  heard  or  read  this  preface  to  the  law  of  hoHness. 

The  prohibitions  which  we  find  in  chap,  xviii.  are  not 
given  as  an  exhaustive  code  of  laws  upon  the  subjects 
traversed,  but  rather  deal  with  certain  gross  offences 
against  the  law  of  chastity,  which,  as  we  know  from 
other  sources,  were  horribly  common  at  that  time  among 
the  surrounding  nations.  To  indulgence  in  these  crimes, 
Israel,  as  the  later  history  sadly  shows,  would  be 
especially  Hable ;  so  contagious  are  evil  example  and 
corrupt  associations !  Hence  the  general  scope  of  the 
chapter  is  announced  in  this  form  (ver.  3) :  ^^  After  the 
doings  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  wherein  ye  dwelt,  shall  ye 
not  do :  and  after  the  doings  of  the  land  of  Canaan, 
whither  I  bring  you,  shall  ye  not  do :  neither  shall  ye 
walk  in  their  statutes." 

Instead  of  this,  they  were  (ver.  4)  to  do  God's 
judgments,  and  keep  His  statutes,  to  walk  in  them, 
bearing  in  mind  whose  they  were.  And  as  a  further 
motive  it  is  added  (ver.  5) :  ^'  which  if  a  man  do,  he 
shall  live  in  them  ; "  that  is,  as  the  Chaldee  paraphrast, 


xvih.i-30.]  THE  LAW  OF  CHASTITY.  381 

Onkelos,  rightly  interprets  in  the  Targum,  "  with  the 
life  of  eternity."  Which  far-reaching  promise  is  sealed 
by  the  repetition,  for  the  third  time,  of  the  words,  "  I 
am  the  Lord."  That  is  enough;  for  what  Jehovah 
promises,  that  shall  certainly  be ! 

The  law  begins  (ver.  6)  with  a  general  statement  of 
the  principle  which  underlies  all  particular  prohibitions 
of  incest :  "  None  of  you  shall  approach  to  any  that  is 
near  of  kin  to  him,  to  uncover  their  nakedness ; "  and 
then,  for  the  fourth  time,  are  iterated  the  words,  "  I 
am  the  Lord."  The  prohibitions  which  follow  require 
little  special  explanation.  As  just  remarked,  they  are 
directed  in  particular  to  those  breaches  of  the  law  of 
chastity  which  were  most  common  with  the  Egyptians, 
from  the  midst  of  whom  Israel  had  come;  and  with 
the  Canaanites,  to  whose  land  they  were  going.  This 
explains,  for  instance,  the  fulness  of  detail  in  the  pro- 
hibition of  incestuous  union  with  a  sister  or  half-sister 
(vv.  9,  1 1), — an  iniquity  very  common  in  Egypt,  having 
the  sanction  of  royal  custom  from  the  days  of  the 
Pharaohs  down  to  the  time  of  the  Ptolemies.  The 
unnatural  alliance  of  a  man  with  his  mother,  prohibited 
in  ver.  8,  of  which  Paul  declared  (i  Cor.  v.  i)  that  in  his 
day  it  did  not  exist  among  the  Gentiles,  was  yet  the 
distinguishing  infamy  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  for 
many  centuries.  Union  with  an  aunt,  by  blood  or  by 
marriage,  prohibited  in  vv.  12-14, — ^  connection  less 
gross,  and  less  severely  to  be  punished  than  the  pre- 
ceding,— seems  to  have  been  permitted  even  among 
the  Israelites  themselves  while  in  Egypt,  as  is  plain 
from  the  case  of  Amram  and  Jochebed  (Exod.  vi.  20). 
To  the  law  forbidding  connection  with  a  brother's  wife 
(ver.  16),  the  later  Deuteronomic  law  (Deut.  xxv.  5-10), 
made  an  exception,  permitting  that  a  man  might  marry 


382  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

the  widow  of  his  deceased  brother,  when  the  latter  had 
died  without  children,  and  *^  raise  up  seed  unto  his 
brother."  In  this,  however,  the  law  but  sanctioned  a 
custom  which — as  we  learn  from  the  case  of  Onan 
(Gen.  xxxviii.) — had  been  observed  long  before  the 
days  of  Moses,  both  by  the  Hebrews  and  other  ancient 
nations,  and,  indeed,  even  limited  and  restricted  its 
application ;  with  good  reason  providing  for  exemption 
of  the  surviving  brother  from  this  duty,  in  cases  where 
for  any  reason  it  might  be  repugnant  or  impracticable. 

The  case  of  a  connection  with  both  a  woman  and 
her  daughter  or  granddaughter  is  next  mentioned 
(ver.  17);  and,  with  special  emphasis,  is  declared  to 
be  "wickedness,"  or  "enormity." 

The  prohibition  (ver.  18)  of  marriage  with  a  sister- 
in-law,  as  is  well  known,  has  been,  and  still  is,  the 
occasion  of  much  controversy,  into  which  it  is  not 
necessary  here  to  enter  at  length.  But,  whatever  may 
be  thought  for  other  reasons  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
such  a  union,  it  truly  seems  quite  singular  that  this 
verse  should  ever  have  been  cited  as  prohibiting  such 
an  alliance.  No  words  could  well  be  more  explicit 
than  those  which  we  have  here,  in  limiting  the  appli- 
cation of  the  prohibition  to  the  life-time  of  the  wife  ; 
"  Thou  shalt  not  take  a  woman  to  her  sister,  to  be  a  rival 
to  her^  to  uncover  her  nakedness,  beside  the  other  in  her 
life  time"  (R.V.).  The  law  therefore  does  not  touch 
the  question  for  which  it  is  so  often  cited,  but  was 
evidently  only  intended  as  a  restriction  on  preva- 
lent polygamy.  Polygamy  is  ever  likely  to  produce 
jealousies  and  heart-burnings  ;  but  it  is  plain  that  this 
phase  of  the  evil  would  reach  its  most  extreme  and 
odious  expression  when  the  new  and  rival  wife  was 
a  sister  to  the  one  already  married ;  when  it  would 


xviii.  1-30.]  THE  LAW  OF  CHASTITY.  383 

practically  annul  sisterly  love,  and  give  rise  to  such 
painful  and  peculiarly  humiliating  dissensions  as  we 
read  of  between  the  sisters  Leah  and  Rachel.  The 
sense  of  the  passage  is  so  plain,  that  we  are  told  that 
this  interpretation  "  stood  its  ground  unchallenged  from 
the  third  century  b.c.  to  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century  a.d."  Whatever  opinion  any  may  hold  there- 
fore as  to  the  expediency,  upon  other  grounds,  of  this 
much  debated  alliance,  this  passage,  certainly,  cannot  be 
fairly  cited  as  forbidding  it ;  but  is  far  more  naturally 
understood  as  by  natural  implication  permitting  the 
union,  after  the  decease  of  the  first  wife.  The  laws 
concerning  incest  therefore  terminate  with  ver.  17; 
and  ver.  18,  according  to  this  interpretation,  must  be 
regarded  as  a  restriction  upon  polygamous  connections, 
as  ver.  19  is  upon  the  rights  of  marriage. 

It  seems  somewhat  surprising  that  the  question 
should  have  been  raised,  even  theoretically,  whether 
the  Mosaic  law,  as  regards  the  degrees  of  affinity  pro- 
hibited in  marriage,  is  of  permanent  authority.  The 
reasons  for  these  prohibitions,  wherever  given,  are  as 
valid  now  as  then ;  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  are 
grounded  fundamentally  in  a  matter  of  fact, — namely, 
the  nature  of  the  relation  between  husband  and  wife, 
whereby  they  become  "  one  flesh,"  implied  in  such 
phraseology  as  we  find  in  ver.  16;  and  also  the  relation 
of  blood  between  members  of  the  same  family,  as  in 
vv.  10,  etc.  Happily,  however,  whatever  theory  any 
may  have  held,  the  Church  in  all  ages  has  practically 
recognised  every  one  of  these  prohibitions,  as  binding 
on  all  persons  ;  and  has  rather  been  inclined  to  err,  if 
at  all,  by  extending,  through  inference  and  analogy, 
the  prohibited  degrees  even  beyond  the  Mosaic  code. 
So  much,  however,  by  way  of  guarding  against  excess 


384  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

in  such  inferential  extensions  ot  the  law,  we  must 
certainly  say :  according  to  the  law  itself,  as  further 
applied  in  chap.  xxi.  1-4,  and  limited  in  Deut.  xxv.  5-10, 
relationship  by  marriage  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  pre- 
cisely equivalent  in  degree  of  affinity  to  relationship 
by  blood.  We  cannot,  for  instance,  conceive  that,  under 
any  circumstances,  the  prohibition  of  the  marriage  of 
brothers  and  sisters  should  have  had  any  exception ; 
and  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  the  marriage  between  brother 
and  sister-in-law  is  explicitly  authorised,  in  the  case 
of  the  levirate  marriage,  and  by  implication  allowed  in 
other  cases,  by  the  language  of  ver.  18  of  this  chapter. 
But  in  these  days,  when  there  is  such  a  manifest 
inclination  in  Christendom,  as  especially  in  the  United 
States  and  in  France,  to  ignore  the  law  of  God  in 
regard  to  marriage  and  divorce,  and  regulate  these 
instead  by  a  majority  vote,  it  assuredly  becomes 
peculiarly  imperative  that,  as  Christians,  we  exercise  a 
holy  jealousy  for  the  honour  of  God  and  the  sanctity 
of  the  family,  and  ever  refuse  to  allow  a  majority  vote 
any  authority  in  these  matters,  where  it  contravenes 
the  law  of  God.  While  we  must  observe  caution  that 
in  these  things  we  lay  no  burden  on  the  conscience  of 
any,  which  God  has  not  first  placed  there,  we  must 
insist — all  the  more  strenuously  because  of  the  universal 
tendency  to  license — upon  the  strict  observance  of  all 
that  is  either  explicitly  taught  or  by  necessary  implica- 
tion involved  in  the  teachings  of  God's  Word  upon  this 
question.  Nothing  more  fundamentally  concerns  the 
well-being  of  society  than  the  relation  of  the  man  and 
the  woman  in  the  constitution  of  the  family ;  and 
while,  unfortunately,  in  our  modern  democratic  com- 
munities, the  Church  may  not  be  able  always  to  control 
and  determine  the  civil  law  in  these  matters,  she  can  at 


xviii.i-30.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS:    CHASTITY.        385 

least  utterly  refuse  any  compromise  where  the  civil  law 
ignores  what  God  has  spoken ;  and  with  unwavering 
firmness  deny  her  sanction,  in  any  way,  to  any  connection 
between  a  man  and  a  woman  which  is  not  according 
to  the  revealed  will  of  God,  as  set  before  us  in  this 
most  holy,  good,  and  beneficent  law. 

The  chapter  before  us  casts  a  light  upon  the  moral 
condition  of  the  most  cultivated  heathen  peoples  in 
those  days,  among  whom  many  of  the  grossest  of 
these  incestuous  connections,  as  already  remarked,  were 
quite  common,  even  among  those  of  the  highest  station. 
There  are  many  in  our  day  more  or  less  affected  with 
the  present  fashion  of  admiration  for  the  ancient  (and 
modern)  heathenisms,  who  would  do  well  to  heed  this 
light,  that  their  blind  enthusiasm  might  thereby  be 
somewhat  tempered. 

On  the  other  hand,  these  laws  show  us,  in  a  very 
striking  contrast,  the  estimate  which  God  puts  upon 
the  maintenance  of  holiness,  purity,  and  chastity  be- 
tween man  and  woman  ;  and  His  very  jealous  regard 
for  the  sanctity  of  the  family  in  all  its  various  relations. 
Even  in  the  Old  Testament  we  have  hints  of  a  reason 
for  this,  deeper  than  mere  expediency, — hints  which 
receive  a  definite  form  in  the  clearer  teaching  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  tells  us  that  in  the  Divine  plan  it  is 
ordained  that  in  these  earthly  relations  man  shall  be  the 
shadow  and  image  of  God.  If,  as  the  Apostle  tells  us 
(Eph.  iii.  15,  R.V.),  "every  family  in  heaven  and  on 
earth "  is  named  from  the  Father ;  and  if,  as  he  again 
teaches  (Eph.  v.  29-32),  the  relation  of  husband  and 
wife  is  intended  to  be  an  earthly  type  and  symbol  of 
the  relation  between  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  His 
Church,  which  is  His  Bride, — then  we  cannot  wonder 
at  the  exceedingly  strong  emphasis  which  marks  these 

25 


386  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


prohibitions.  Everything  must  be  excluded  which 
would  be  incompatible  with  this  holy  ideal  of  God  for 
man ;  that  not  only  in  the  constitution  of  his  person, 
but  in  these  sacred  relations  which  belong  to  his  very 
nature,  as  created  male  and  female,  he  should  be  the 
image  of  the  invisible  God. 

Thus,  he  who  is  a  father  is  ever  to  bear  in  mind 
that  in  his  fatherhood  he  is  appointed  to  shadow  forth 
the  ineffable  mystery  of  the  eternal  relation  of  the  only- 
begotten  and  most  holy  Son  to  this  everlasting  Father. 
As   husband,  the  man   is   to  remember  that  since   he 
who  is  joined  to  his  wife  becomes  with  her  '*  one  flesh," 
therefore  this  union  becomes,  in  the  Divine  ordination, 
a  type  and  pattern  of  the  yet  more  mysterious  union 
of  life  between  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Church,  which 
is    His    Bride.     As    brothers    and    sisters,    again,    the 
children  of  God  are  to  remember  that  brotherly  love,  in 
its  purity  and  unselfish  devotion,  is  intended  of  God  to 
be  a  living  illustration  of  the  love  of  Him  who   has 
been  made  of  God  to  be  "the  firstborn  among  many 
brethren  "  (Rom.  viii.  29).     And  thus,  with  the  family 
life    pervaded    through   and    through    by  these    ideas, 
will  license  and  impurity  be  made  impossible,  and,  as 
happily  now  in  many  a  Christian  home,  it  will  appear 
that  the  family,  no  less  truly  than  the  Church,  is  ap- 
pointed of  God  to  be  a  sanctuary  of  purity  in  a  world 
impure    and    corrupt    by  wicked  works,  and,   no   less 
really  than   the  Church,  to  be  an  effective  means  of 
Divine  grace,  and  of  preparation  for  the  eternal  life  of 
the  heavenly  kingdom,  when  all  of  God's  "  many  sons  " 
shall  have  been  brought  to  glory,  the  "  many  brethren  " 
of  the  First-Begotten,  to  abide  with  Him  in  the  Father's 
house  for  ever  and  ever. 

After  the  prohibition  of  adultery  in  ver.  20,  we  have 


xviii.  I-30.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS:    CHASTITY.        387 

what  at  first  seems  like  a  very  abrupt  introduction  of  a 
totally  different  subject;  for  ver.  21  refers,  not  to  the 
seventh,  but  to  the  second,  and,  therewith  also,  to  the 
sixth  commandment.  It  reads  :  '^  Thou  shalt  not  give 
any  of  thy  seed  to  make  them  pass  through  the  fire  to 
Molech,  neither  shalt  thou  profane  the  name  of  thy  God." 

But  the  connection  of  thought  is  found  in  the  historical 
relation  of  the  licentious  practices  prohibited  in  the 
preceding  verses  to  idolatry,  of  which  this  Molech- 
worship  is  named  as  one  of  the  most  hideous  manifesta- 
tions. Some,  indeed,  have  supposed  that  this  frequently 
recurring  phrase  does  not  designate  an  actual  sacrifice 
of  the  children,  but  only  their  consecration  to  Molech 
by  some  kind  of  fire-baptism.  But  certainly  such 
passages  as  2  Kings  xvii.  31,  Jer.  vii.  31,  xix.  5,  dis- 
tinctly require  us  to  understand  an  actual  offering  of 
the  children  as  **  burnt-offerings."  They  were  not 
indeed  burnt  alive,  as  a  late  and  untrustworthy  tradition 
has  it,  but  were  first  slain,  as  in  the  case  of  all  burnt- 
sacrifices,  and  then  burnt.  The  unnatural  cruelty  of 
the  sacrifice,  even  as  thus  made,  was  such,  that  both 
here  and  in  xx.  3  it  is  described  as  in  a  special  sense 
a  *' profaning"  of  God's  holy  name, — a  profanation,  in 
that  it  represented  Him,  the  Lord  of  love  and  fatherly 
mercy,  as  requiring  such  a  cruel  and  unnatural  sacrifice 
of  parental  love,  in  the  immolation  of  innocent  children. 

The  inconceivably  unnatural  crimes  prohibited  in 
vv.  22,  23  were  in  like  manner  essentially  connected 
with  idolatrous  worship :  the  former  with  the  worship 
of  Astarte  or  Ashtoreth ;  the  latter  with  the  worship 
of  the  he-goat  at  Mendes  in  Egypt,  as  the  symbol 
of  the  generative  power  in  nature.  What  a  hideous 
perversion  of  the  moral  sense  was  involved  in  these 
crimes,  as  thus  connected  with  idolatrous  worship,  is 


388  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


illustrated  strikingly  by  the  fact  that  men  and  women, 
thus  prostituted  to  the  service  of  false  gods,  were 
designated  by  the  terms  qddesh  and  qddeshdh,  "sacred/' 
''  holy  "  !  ^  No  wonder  that  the  sacred  writer  brands 
these  horrible  crimes  as,  in  a  peculiar  and  almost 
solitary  sense,  "abomination,"  "confusion." 

In  these  days  of  ours,  when  it  has  become  the 
fashion  among  a  certain  class  of  cultured  writers — who 
would  still,  in  many  instances,  apparently  desire  to  be 
called  Christian — to  act  as  the  apologists  of  idolatrous, 
and,  according  to  Holy  Scripture,  false  religions,  the 
mention  of  these  crimes  in  this  connection  may  well 
remind  the  reader  of  what  such  seem  to  forget,  as 
they  certainly  ignore ;  namely,  that  in  all  ages,  in 
the  modern  heathenism  no  less  than  in  the  ancient, 
idolatry  and  gross  licentiousness  ever  go  hand  in  hand. 
Still,  to-day,  even  in  Her  Majesty's  Indian  Empire,  is 
the  most  horrible  licentiousness  practised  as  an  office 
of  religious  worship.  Nor  are  such  revolting  perver- 
sions of  the  moral  sense  confined  to  the  "  Maharajas"  of 
the  temples  in  Western  India,  who  figured  in  certain 
trials  in  Bombay  a  few  years  ago ;  for  even  the 
modern  "reformed"  Hindooism,  from  which  some 
hope  so  much,  has  not  always  been  able  to  shake  it- 
self free  from  the  pollution  of  these  things,  as  witness 
the  argument  conducted  in  recent  numbers  of  the 
Arya  Patrikd  of  Lahore,  to  justify  the  infamous  custom 
known  as  Niyoga,  practised  to  this  day  in  India,  e.g.y 
by  the  Panday  Brahmans  of  Allahabad ; — a  practice 
which  is  sufficiently  described  as  being  adultery 
arranged  for,  under  certain  conditions,  by  a  wife  or 
husband,  the  one  for  the  other.     One  would  fain  chari- 

'  See,   for  example,  in  the  Hebrew  text,   I  Kings  xiv.   24;   Gen 
xxxviii.  21  ;  Hosea  iv.  14,  et  passim. 


xviii.i-30.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS:   CHASTITY.        389 

tably  hope,  it  possible,  that  our  modern  apologists  for 
Oriental  idolatries  are  unaccountably  ignorant  of  what 
all  history  should  have  taught  them  as  to  the  insepa- 
rable connection  between  idolatry  and  licentiousness. 
Both  Egypt  and  Canaan,  in  the  olden  time, — as  this 
chapter  with  all  contemporaneous  history  teaches, — 
and  also  India  in  modern  times,  read  us  a  very  awful 
lesson  on  this  subject.  Not  only  have  these  idolatries 
led  too  often  to  gross  licentiousness  of  life,  but  in  their 
full  development  they  have,  again  and  again,  in  auda- 
cious and  blasphemous  profanation  of  the  most  holy 
God,  and  defiance  even  of  the  natural  conscience,  given 
to  the  most  horrible  excesses  of  unbridled  lust  the 
supreme  sanction  of  declaring  them  to  be  religious 
obligations.  Assuredly,  in  God's  sight,  it  cannot  be  a 
trifling  thing  for  any  man,  even  through  ignorance,  to 
extol,  or  even  apologise  for,  religions  with  which  such 
enormities  are  both  logically  and  historically  connected. 
And  so,  in  these  stern  prohibitions,  and  their  heavy 
penal  sanctions,  we  may  find  a  profitable  lesson  for  even 
the  cultivated  intellect  of  the  nineteenth  century  ! 

The  chapter  closes  with  reiterated  charges  against 
indulgence  in  any  of  these  abominations.  Israel  is  told 
(vv.  25,  28)  that  it  was  because  the  Canaanites  practised 
these  enormities  that  God  was  about  to  scourge  them 
out  of  their  land; — a  judicial  reason  which,  one  would 
think,  should  have  some  weight  with  those  whose  sym- 
pathies are  so  drawn  out  with  commiseration  for  the 
Canaanites,  that  they  find  it  impossible  to  believe  that 
it  can  be  true,  as  we  are  told  in  the  Pentateuch, 
that  God  ordered  their  extermination.  Rather,  in  the 
light  of  the  facts,  would  we  raise  the  opposite  question : 
whether,  if  God  indeed  be  a  holy  and  righteous 
Governor  among  the  nations,  He  could  do  anything  else 


390  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

either  in  justice  toward  the  Canaanites,  or  in  mercy 
toward  those  whom  their  horrible  example  would 
certainly  in  like  manner  corrupt,  than,  in  one  way  or 
another,  effect  the  extermination  of  such  a  people  ? 

Israel  is  then  solemnly  warned  (ver.  28)  that  if  they, 
notwithstanding,  shall  practise  these  crimes,  God  will 
not  spare  them  any  more  than  He  spared  the  Canaan- 
ites. No  covenant  of  His  with  them  shall  hinder  the 
land  from  spueing  them  out  in  like  manner.  And 
though  the  nation,  as  a  whole,  give  not  itself  to  these 
things,  each  individual  is  warned  (ver.  29),  "Whoso- 
ever shall  commit  any  of  these  abominations,  even  the 
souls  that  do  them  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  their 
people  ; "  that  is,  shall  be  outlawed  and  shut  out  from 
all  participation  in  covenant  mercies.  And  therewith 
this  part  of  the  law  of  holiness  closes,  with  those 
pregnant  words,  repeated  now  in  this  chapter  for  the 
fifth  time :  "  I  am  the  Lord  (H^b.  Jehovah)  your 
God!" 


CHAPTER    XXI. 

THE    LAW   OF   HOLINESS    {CONCLUDED). 
Lev.  xix.  I -37. 

WE  have  in  this  chapter  a  series  of  precepts 
and  prohibitions  which  from  internal  evidence 
appear  to  have  been  selected  by  an  inspired  redactor 
of  the  canon  from  various  original  documents,  with  the 
purpose,  not  of  presenting  a  complete  enumeration  of 
all  moral  and  ceremonial  duties,  but  of  illustrating  the 
application  in  the  everyday  life  of  the  Israelite  of  the 
injunction  which  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter 
(ver.  2)  :  ''Ye  shall  be  holy :  for  I  the  Lord  your  God 
am  holy." 

Truly  strange  it  is,  in  the  full  light  of  Hebrew  his- 
tory, to  find  any  one,  like  Kalisch,  representing  this 
conception  of  holiness,  so  fundamental  to  this  law, 
as  the  ^'  ripest  fruit  of  Hebrew  culture  "  !  For  it  is 
insisted  by  such  competent  critics,  as  Dillmann,  that  we 
have  not  in  this  chapter  a  late  development  of  Hebrew 
thought,  but  "ancient,"  "  the  most  ancient"  material;^ 
— we  shall  venture  to  say,  dating  even  from  the  days  of 
Moses,  as  is  declared  in  ver.  i.  And  we  may  say  more. 
For  if  such  be  the  antiquity  of  this  law,  it  should  be 

*  "  Die  Bucher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  2  Aufl.,  p.  550. 


392  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


easy  even  for  the  most  superficial  reader  of  the  history 
to  see  how  immeasurably  far  was  that  horde  of  almost 
wholly  uncultured  fugitives  from  Egyptian  bondage  from 
having  attained  through  any  culture  this  Mosaic  concep- 
tion of  holiness.  For  '*  Hebrew  culture,'  even  in  its 
latest  maturity,  has,  at  the  best,  only  tended  to  develop 
more  and  more  the  idea,  not  of  holiness,  but  of  legality, 
— a  very  different  thing !  The  ideal  expressed  in 
this  command,  "Ye  shall  be  holy,"  must  have  come, 
not  from  Israel,  not  even  from  Moses,  as  if  originated 
by  him,  but  from  the  Holy  God  Himself,  even  as  the 
chapter  in  its  first  verse  testifies. 

The  position  of  this  command  at  the  head  of  the  long 
list  of  precepts  which  follows,  is  most  significant  and 
instructive.  It  sets  before  us  the  object  of  the  whole 
ceremonial  and  moral  law,  and,  we  may  add,  the 
supreme  object  of  the  Gospel  also,  namely,  to  produce  a 
certain  type  of  moral  and  spiritual  character,  a  holy 
manhood  ;  it,  moreover,  precisely  interprets  this  term, 
so  universally  misunderstood  and  misapplied  among  all 
nations,  as  essentially  consisting  in  a  spiritual  likeness 
to  God :  *'  Ye  shall  be  holy :  for  I  the  Lord  your  God 
am  holy."  These  words  evidently  at  once  define  holi- 
ness and  declare  the  supreme  motive  to  the  attainment 
and  maintenance  of  a  holy  character.  This  then  is 
brought  before  us  as  the  central  thought  in  which  all 
the  diverse  precepts  and  prohibitions  which  follow  find 
their  unity;  and,  accordingly,  we  find  this  keynote 
of  the  whole  law  echoing,  as  it  were,  all  through  this 
chapter,  in  the  constant  refrain,  repeated  herein  no  less 
than  fourteen — twice  seven — times  :  "  I  am  the  Lord 
(Heb.  Jehovah)  !  "  "I  am  the  Lord  your  God  !" 

The  first  division  of  the  law  of  hoHness  which  follows 
(w.  3-8),  deals  with  two   duties   of  fundamental  im- 


xix.  1-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  {CONCLUDED).      393 

portance  in  the  social  and  the  reHgious  life  :  the  one, 
honour  to  parents  ;  the  other,  reverence  to  God. 

If  we  are  surprised,  at  first,  to  see  this  place  of 
honour  in  the  law  of  holiness  given  to  the  fifth  com- 
mandment (ver.  3),  our  surprise  will  lessen  when  we 
remember  how,  taking  the  individual  in  the  develop- 
ment of  his  personal  life,  he  learns  to  fear  God,  first  of 
all,  through  fearing  and  honouring  his  parents.  In  the 
earliest  beginnings  of  life,  the  parent — to  speak  with 
reverence — stands  to  his  child,  in  a  very  peculiar  sense, 
for  and  in  the  place  of  God.  We  gain  the  conception 
of  the  Father  in  heaven  first  from  our  experience  of 
fatherhood  on  earth ;  and  so  it  may  be  said  of  this 
commandment,  in  a  sense  in  which  it  cannot  be  said 
of  any  other,  that  it  is  the  foundation  of  all  religion. 
Alas  for  the  child  who  contemns  the  instruction  of  his 
father  and  the  command  of  his  mother  !  for  by  so  doing 
he  puts  himself  out  of  the  possibility  of  coming  into 
the  knowledge  and  experience  of  the  Fatherhood  of 
God. 

The  principle  of  reverence  toward  God  is  inculcated, 
not  here  by  direct  precept,  but  by  three  injunctions, 
obedience  to  which  presupposes  the  fear  of  God  in 
the  heart.  These  are,  first  (ver.  3),  the  keeping  of  the 
sabbaths ;  the  possessive,  ''  My  sabbaths,"  reminding 
us  tersely  of  God's  claim  upon  the  seventh  part  of  all  our 
time  as  His  time.  Then  is  commanded  the  avoidance 
of  idolatry  (ver.  4) ;  and,  lastly  (vv.  5-8),  a  charge  as 
to  the  observance  of  the  law  of  the  peace-offering. 

One  reason  seems  to  have  determined  the  selection 
of  each  of  these  three  injunctions,  namely,  that  Israel 
would  be  more  liable  to  fail  in  obedience  to  these  than 
perhaps  any  other  duties  of  the  law.  As  for  the 
sabbath,  this,  like  the  law  of  the  peace-offering,  was  a 


394  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


positive,  not  a  moral  law ;  that  is,  it  depended  for  its 
authority  primarily  on  the  explicit  ordinance  of  God, 
instead  of  the  intuition  of  the  natural  conscience. 
Hence  it  was  certain  that  it  would  only  be  kept  in  so 
far  as  man  retained  a  vivid  consciousness  of  the  Divine 
personality  and  moral  authority.  Moreover,  as  all 
history  has  shown,  the  law  of  the  sabbath  rest  from 
labour  constantly  comes  into  conflict  with  man's  love 
of  gain  and  eager  haste  to  make  money.  It  is  a  life- 
picture,  true  for  men  of  every  generation,  when  Amos 
(viii.  5)  brings  before  us  the  Israelites  of  his  day  as 
saying,  in  their  insatiate  worldly  greed,  '*  When  will 
the  sabbath  be  gone,  that  we  may  set  forth  wheat  ?  " 
As  regards  the  selection  of  the  second  commandment, 
one  can  easily  see  that  Israel's  loyalty,  surrounded  as 
they  were  on  every  side  with  idolaters,  was  to  be 
tested  with  peculiar  severity  on  this  point,  whether 
they  would  indeed  worship  the  living  God  alone  and 
without  the  intervention  of  idols. 

The  circumstances,  as  regards  the  peace-offering, 
were  different;  but  the  same  principle  of  choice  can 
be  discovered  in  this  also.  For  among  all  the  various 
ordinances  of  sacrificial  worship  there  was  none  in 
which  the  requisitions  of  the  law  were  more  likely 
to  be  neglected  ;  partly  because  these  were  the  most 
frequent  of  all  offerings,  and  also  because  the  Israelite 
would  often  be  tempted,  through  a  short-sighted 
economy  and  worldly  thriftiness,  to  use  the  meat  of 
the  peace-offering  for  food,  if  any  remained  until  the 
third  day,  instead  of  burning  it,  in  such  case,  as  the 
Lord  commanded.  Hence  the  reminder  of  the  law  on 
this  subject,  teaching  that  he  who  will  be  holy  must 
not  seek  to  save  at  the  expense  of  obedience  to  the 
holy  God. 


XIX.  1-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  {CONCLUDED),      395 

The  second  section  of  this  chapter  (w.  9-18)  con- 
sists of  five  groups,  each  of  five  precepts,  all  relating 
to  duties  which  the  law  of  holiness  requires  from  man 
to  man,  and  each  of  them  closing  with  the  character- 
istic and  impressive  refrain,  "  I  am  the  Lord." 

The  first  of  these  pentads  (vv.  9,  10)  requires 
habitual  care  for  the  poor :  we  read,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
wholly  reap  the  corners  of  thy  field,  neither  shalt  thou 
gather  the  gleaning  of  thy  harvest.  And  thou  shalt  not 
glean  thy  vineyard,  neither  shalt  thou  gather  the  fallen 
fruit  of  thy  vineyard  ;  thou  shalt  leave  them  for  the 
poor  and  for  the  stranger." 

The  law  covers  the  three  chief  products  of  their 
agriculture :  the  grain,  the  product  of  the  vine,  and 
the  fruit  of  the  trees, — largely  olive-trees,  which  were 
often  planted  in  the  vineyard.  So  often  as  God  blessed 
them  with  the  harvest,  they  were  to  remember  the 
poor,  and  also  "  the  stranger,"  who  according  to  the 
law  could  have  a  legal  claim  to  no  land  in  Israel. 
Apart  from  the  benefit  to  the  poor,  one  can  readily  see 
what  an  admirable  discipline  against  man's  natural 
selfishness,  and  in  loyalty  to  God,  this  regulation, 
faithfully  observed,  must  have  been.  Behind  these 
commands  lies  the  principle,  elsewhere  explicitly  ex- 
pressed (xxv.  23),  that  the  land  which  the  Israelite 
tilled  was  not  his  own,  but  the  Lord's  ;  and  it  is  as 
the  Owner  of  the  land  that  He  thus  charges  them  that 
as  His  tenants  they  shall  not  regard  themselves  as 
entitled  to  everything  that  the  land  produces,  but  bear 
in  mind  that  He  intends  a  portion  of  every  acre  of 
each  Israelite  to  be  reserved  for  the  poor.  And  so  the 
labourer  in  the  harvest-field  was  continually  reminded 
that  in  his  husbandry  he  was  merely  God's  steward, 
bound  to  apply  the  product  of  the  land,  the  use  of 


396  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


which  was  given  him,  in  such  a  way  as  should  please 
the  Lord. 

If  the  law  is  not  in  force  as  to  the  letter,  let  us  not 
forget  that  it  is  of  full  validity  as  to  its  spirit.  God 
is  still  the  God  of  the  poor  and  needy ;  and  we  are 
still  every  one,  as  truly  as  the  Hebrew  in  those  days, 
the  stewards  of  God.  And  the  poor  we  have  with 
us  always ;  perhaps  never  more  than  in  these  days, 
in  which  so  great  masses  of  helpless  humanity  are 
crowded  together  in  our  immense  cities,  did  the  cry 
of  the  poor  and  needy  so  ascend  to  heaven.  And 
that  the  Apostles,  acting  under  Divine  direction,  and 
abolishing  the  letter  of  the  theocratic  law,  yet  steadily 
maintained  the  spirit  and  intention  of  that  law  in  care 
for  the  poor,  is  testified  with  abundant  fulness  in  the 
New  Testament.  One  of  the  firstfruits  of  Pentecost 
in  the  lives  of  believers  was  just  this,  that  "all  that 
believed  .  .  .  had  all  things  common  "  (Acts  ii.  44,45), 
so  that,  going  even  beyond  the  letter  of  the  old  law, 
"  they  sold  their  possessions  and  goods,  and  parted  them 
to  all,  according  as  any  man  had  need."  And  the  one 
only  charge  which  the  Apostles  at  Jerusalem  gave  unto 
Paul  is  reported  by  him  in  these  words  (Gal.  ii.  lo)  : 
"Only  they  would  that  we  should  remember  the 
poor;  which  very  thing  I  was  also  zealous  to  do."  Let 
the  believer  then  remember  this  who  has  plenty :  the 
corners  of  his  fields  are  to  be  kept  for  the  poor,  and 
the  gleanings  of  his  vineyards  ;  and  let  the  believer 
also  take  the  peculiar  comfort  from  this  law,  if  he  is 
poor,  that  God,  his  heavenly  Father,  has  a  kindly  care, 
not  merely  for  his  spiritual  wants,  but  also  for  his 
temporal  necessities. 

The  second  pentad  (vv.  ii,  12)  in  the  letter  refers 
to  three  of  the  ten  commandments,  but  is  really  con- 


six.  1-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  {CONCLUDED).     397 

cerned,  primarily,  with  stealing  and  defrauding ;  for 
the  lying  and  false  swearing  is  here  regarded  only 
as  commonly  connected  with  theft  and  fraud,  because 
often  necessary  to  secure  the  result  of  a  man's  plunder. 
The  pentad  is  in  this  form  :  "  Ye  shall  not  steal ; 
neither  shall  ye  deal  falsely,  nor  lie  one  to  another. 
And  ye  shall  not  swear  by  My  name  falsely,  so  that 
thou  profane  the  name  of  thy  God  :  I  am  the  Lord ! " 

Close  upon  stinginess  and  the  careless  greed  which 
neglects  the  poor,  with  eager  grasping  after  the  last 
grape  on  the  vine,  follows  the  active  effort  to  get,  not 
only  the  uttermost  that  might  by  any  stretch  of  charity 
be  regarded  as  our  own,  but  also  to  get  something  more 
that  belongs  to  our  neighbour.  There  is  thus  a  very 
close  connection  in  thought,  as  well  as  in  position, 
in  these  two  groups  of  precepts.  And  the  sequence 
of  thought  in  this  group  suggests  what  is,  indeed, 
markedly  true  of  stealing,  but  also  of  other  sins.  Sin 
rarely  goes  alone ;  one  sin,  by  almost  a  necessity, 
leads  straight  on  to  another  sin.  He  who  steals,  or 
deals  falsely  in  regard  to  anything  committed  to  his 
trust,  will  most  naturally  be  led  on  at  once  to  lie  about 
it ;  and  when  his  lie  is  challenged,  as  it  is  likely  to  be, 
he  is  impelled  by  a  fatal  pressure  to  go  yet  further, 
and  fortify  his  lie,  and  consummate  his  sin,  by 
appealing  by  an  oath  to  the  Holy  God,  as  witness 
to  the  truth  of  his  lie.  Thus,  the  sin  which  in  the 
beginning  is  directed  only  toward  a  fellow-man,  too 
often  causes  one  to  sin  immediately  against  God,  in 
profanation  of  the  name  of  the  God  of  truth,  by  calling 
on  Him  as  witness  to  a  lie  !  Of  this  tendency  of 
sin,  stealing  is  a  single  illustration ;  but  let  us  ever 
remember  that  it  is  a  law  of  all  sin  that  sin  ever 
begets  more  sin. 


398  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

This  second  group  has  dealt  with  injury  to  the 
neighbour  in  the  way  of  guile  and  fraud  ;  the  third 
pentad  (vv.  13,  14),  progressing  further,  speaks  of 
wrong  committed  in  ways  of  oppression  and  violence. 
*'  Thou  shalt  not  oppress  thy  neighbour,  nor  rob  him : 
the  wages  of  a  hired  servant  shall  not  abide  with 
thee  all  night  until  the  morning.  Thou  shalt  not  curse 
the  deaf,  nor  put  a  stumbling-block  before  the  blind, 
but  thou  shalt  fear  thy  God  :  I  am  the  Lord ! "  In 
these  commands,  again,  it  is  still  the  helpless  and 
defenceless  in  whose  behalf  the  Lord  is  speaking. 
The  words  regard  a  man  as  having  it  in  his  power  to 
press  hard  upon  his  neighbour ;  as  when  an  employer, 
seeing  that  a  man  must  needs  have  work  at  any  price, 
takes  advantage  of  his  need  to  employ  him  at  less  than 
fair  wages ;  or  as  when  he  who  holds  a  mortgage 
against  his  neighbour,  seeing  an  opportunity  to  possess 
himself  of  a  field  or  an  estate  for  a  trifle,  by  pressing 
his  technical  legal  rights,  strips  his  poor  debtor  need- 
lessly. No  end  of  illustrations,  evidently,  could  be 
given  out  of  our  modern  life.  Man's  nature  is  the 
same  now  as  in  the  days  of  Moses.  But  all  dealings 
of  this  kind,  whether  then  or  now,  the  law  of  holiness 
sternly  prohibits. 

So  also  with  the  injunction  concerning  the  retention 
of  wages  after  it  is  due.  I  have  not  fulfilled  the  law 
of  love  toward  the  man  or  woman  whom  I  employ 
merely  by  paying  fair  wages  ;  I  must  also  pay  promptly. 
The  Deuteronomic  law  repeats  the  command,  and,  with 
a  peculiar  touch  of  sympathetic  tenderness,  adds  the 
reason  (xxiv.  15):  "for  he  is  poor,  and  setteth  his 
heart  upon  it."  I  must  therefore  give  the  labourer 
his  wages  ''  in  his  day."  A  sin  this  is,  of  the  rich 
especially,  and,  most  of  all,  of  rich  corporations,  with 


xix.i-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  {CONCLUDED).     399 

which  the  sense  of  personal  responsibility  to  God  is 
too  often  reduced  to  a  minimum.  Yet  it  is  often, 
no  doubt,  committed  through  sheer  thoughtlessness. 
Men  who  are  themselves  blessed  with  such  abundance 
that  they  are  not  seriously  incommoded  by  a  delay  in 
receiving  some  small  sum,  too  often  forget  how  a 
great  part  of  the  poor  live,  as  the  saying  is,  **  from 
hand  to  mouth,"  so  that  the  failure  to  get  what  is  due 
to  them  at  the  exact  time  appointed  is  frequently  a  sore 
trial ;  and,  moreover,  by  forcing  them  to  buy  on  credit 
instead  of  for  cash,  of  necessity  increases  the  expense 
of  their  living,  and  so  really  robs  them  of  that  which 
is  their  own. 

The  thought  is  still  of  care  for  the  helpless,  in  the 
words  concerning  the  deaf  and  the  blind,  which,  of 
course,  are  of  perpetual  force,  and,  in  the  principle 
involved,  reach  indefinitely  beyond  these  single  illustra- 
tions. We  are  not  to  take  advantage  of  any  man's 
helplessness,  and,  especially,  of  such  disabilities  as  he 
cannot  help,  to  wrong  him.  Even  the  common  con- 
science of  men  recognises  this  as  both  wicked  and 
mean  ;  and  this  verdict  of  conscience  is  here  emphasised 
by  the  reminder  '^  I  am  the  Lord," — suggesting  that  the 
labourer  who  reaps  the  fields,  yea,  the  blind  also  and 
the  deaf,  are  His  creatures ;  and  that  He,  the  merciful 
and  just  One,  will  not  disown  the  relation,  but  will 
plead  their  cause. 

Each  of  these  groups  of  precepts  has  kept  the  poor 
and  the  needy  in  a  special  way,  though  not  exclusively, 
before  the  conscience.  And  yet  no  man  is  to  imagine 
that  therefore  God  will  be  partial  toward  the  poor,  and 
that  hence,  although  one  may  not  wrong  the  poor, 
one  may  wrong  the  rich  with  impunity.  Many  of  our 
modern  social  reformers,  in  their  zeal  for  the  better- 


40O  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


ment  of  the  poor,  seem  to  imagine  that  because  a  poor 
man  has  rights  which  are  too  frequently  ignored  by 
the  rich,  and  thus  often  suffers  grievous  wrongs,  there- 
fore a  rich  man  has  no  rights  which  the  poor  man  is 
bound  to  respect.  The  next  pentad  of  precepts  there- 
fore guards  against  any  such  false  inference  from  God's 
special  concern  for  the  poor,  and  reminds  us  that  the 
absolute  righteousness  of  the  Holy  One  requires  that 
the  rights  of  the  rich  be  observed  no  less  than  the 
rights  of  the  poor,  those  of  the  employer  no  less  than 
those  of  the  employed.  It  deals  especially  with  this 
matter  as  it  comes  up  in  questions  requiring  legal 
adjudication.  We  read  (vv.  15,  16),  "Ye  shall  do  no 
unrighteousness  in  judgment :  thou  shalt  not  respect 
the  person  of  the  poor,  nor  honour  the  person  of  the 
mighty :  but  in  righteousness  shalt  thou  judge  thy 
neighbour.  Thou  shalt  not  go  up  and  down  as  a 
talebearer  among  thy  people  :  neither  shalt  thou  stand 
against  the  blood  of  thy  neighbour :  I  am  the  Lord  ! " 

A  plain  warning  lies  here  for  an  increasing  class  of 
reformers  in  our  day,  who  loudly  express  their  special 
concern  for  the  poor,  but  who  in  their  zeal  for  social 
reform  and  the  diminishing  of  poverty  are  forgetful  of 
righteousness  and  equity.  It  applies,  for  instance,  to 
all  who  would  affirm  and  teach  with  Marx  that  '*  capital 
is  robbery ; "  or  who,  not  yet  quite  ready  for  so  plain 
and  candid  words,  yet  would,  in  any  way,  in  order  to 
right  the  wrongs  of  the  poor,  advocate  legislation 
involving  practical  confiscation  of  the  estates  of  the 
rich. 

In  close  connection  with  the  foregoing,  the  next 
precept  forbids,  not  precisely  *'  tale-bearing,"  but 
"  slander,"  as  the  word  is  elsewhere  rendered,  even  in 
the  Revised  Version.     In  the  court  of  judgment,  slander 


xix.i-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  {CONCLUDED).      401 

is  not  to  be  uttered  nor  listened  to.  The  clause  which 
follows  is  obscure ;  but  means  either,  "  Thou  shalt  * 
not,  by  such  slanderous  testimony,  seek  in  the  court 
of  judgment  thy  neighbour's  life,"  which  best  suits  the 
parallelism ;  or,  perhaps,  as  the  Talmud  and  most 
modern  Jewish  versions  interpret,  '^Thou  shalt  not 
stand  silent  by,  when  thy  neighbour's  life  is  in  danger 
in  the  court  of  judgment,  and  thy  testimony  might  save 
him."  And  then  again  comes  in  the  customary  refrain, 
reminding  the  Israelite  that  in  every  court,  noting 
every  act  of  judgment,  and  listening  to  every  witness, 
is  a  Judge  unseen,  omniscient,  absolutely  righteous, 
under  whose  final  review,  for  confirmation  or  reversal, 
shall  come  all  earthly  decisions :  "  I,"  who  thus  speak, 
^^am  the  Lord!" 

The  fifth  and  last  pentad  (vv.  17,  18)  fitly  closes 
the  series,  by  its  five  precepts,  of  which,  three,  reaching 
behind  all  such  outward  acts  as  are  required  or  for- 
bidden in  the  foregoing,  deal  with  the  state  of  the  heart 
toward  our  neighbour  which  the  law  of  holiness  re- 
quires, as  the  soul  and  the  root  of  all  righteousness. 
It  closes  with  the  familiar  words,  so  simple  that  all 
can  understand  them,  so  comprehensive  that  in  obedi- 
ence to  them  is  comprehended  all  morality  and  right- 
eousness toward  man  :  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour 
as  thyself"  The  verses  read,  "  Thou  shalt  not  hate 
thy  brother  in  thine  heart :  thou  shalt  surely  rebuke 
thy  neighbour,  and  not  bear  sin  because  of  him.  Thou 
shalt  not  take  vengeance,  nor  bear  any  grudge  against 
the  children  of  thy  people,  but  thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself :  I  am  the  Lord!" 

Most  instructive  it  is  to  find  it  suggested  by  this 
order,  as  the.  best  evidence  of  the  absence  of  hate,  and 
the  truest  expression  of  love  to  our  neighbour,  that 

26 


402  rHE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

when  we  see  him  doing  wrong  we  shall  rebuke  him. 
The  Apostle  Paul  has  enjoined  upon  Christians  the 
same  duty,  indicating  also  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  to 
be  performed  (Gal.  vi.  i)  :  "  Brethren,  even  if  a  man 
be  overtaken  in  any  trespass,  ye  which  are  spiritual, 
restore  such  a  one  in  a  spirit  of  meekness ;  looking  to 
thyself,  lest  thou  also  be  tempted."  Thus,  if  we  will 
be  holy,  it  is  not  to  be  a  matter  of  no  concern  to  us 
that  our  neighbour  does  wrong,  even  though  that  wrong 
do  not  directly  affect  our  personal  well-being.  Instead 
of  this,  we  are  to  remember  that  if  we  rebuke  him  not, 
we  ourselves  "  bear  sin,  because  of  him ; "  that  is,  we 
ourselves,  in  a  degree,  become  guilty  with  him,  because 
of  that  wrong-doing  of  his  which  we  sought  not  in  any 
way  to  hinder.  But  although,  on  the  one  hand,  I  am 
to  rebuke  the  wrong-doer,  even  when  his  wrong  does 
not  touch  me  personally,  yet,  the  law  adds,  I  am  not  to 
take  into  my  own  hands  the  avenging  of  wrongs,  even 
when  myself  injured ;  neither  am  I  to  be  envious  and 
grudge  any  neighbour  the  good  he  may  have ;  no,  not 
though  he  be  an  ill-doer  and  deserve  it  not ;  but  be  he 
friend  or  foe,  well-doer  or  ill-doer,  I  must  love  him  as 
myself. 

What  an  admirable  epitome  of  the  whole  law  of 
righteousness  !  a  Mosaic  anticipation  of  the  very  spirit 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Evidently,  the  same 
mind  speaks  in  both  alike ;  the  law  the  same,  the 
object  and  aim  oi  the  law  the  same,  both  in  Leviticus 
and  in  the  Gospel.  In  this  law  we  hear :  "  Ye  shall 
be  holy :  for  I  the  Lord  your  God  am  holy ; "  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount :  ^'  Ye  shall  be  perfect,  as  your 
heavenly  Father  is  perfect." 

The  third  division  of  this  chapter  (vv.  19-32)  opens 
with  a  general  charge  to  obedience  :  "  Ye  shall  keep 


xix.  1-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS   {CONCLUDED).      403 

My  statutes ; "  very  possibly,  because  several  of  the 
commands  which  immediately  follow  might  seem  in 
themselves  of  little  consequence,  and  so  be  lightly 
disobeyed.  The  law  of  ver.  19  prohibits  raising  hybrid 
animals,  as,  for  example,  mules ;  the  next  command 
apparently  refers  to  the  chance,  through  sowing  a  field 
with  mingled  seed,  of  giving  rise  to  hybrid  forms  in  the 
vegetable  kingdom.  The  last  command  in  this  verse 
is  obscure  both  in  meaning  and  intention.  It  reads 
(R.V.),  ''  Neither  shall  there  come  upon  thee  a  garment 
of  two  kinds  of  stuff  mingled  together."  Most  probably 
the  reference  is  to  different  materials,  interwoven  in  the 
yarn  of  which  the  dress  was  made;  but  a  difficulty 
still  remains  in  the  fact  that  such  admixture  was 
ordered  in  the  garments  of  the  priests.  Perhaps  the 
best  explanation  is  that  of  Josephus,  that  the  law  here 
was  only  intended  for  the  laity ;  which,  as  no  question 
of  intrinsic  morality  was  involved,  might  easily  have 
been.  But  when  we  inquire  as  to  the  reason  of  these 
prohibitions,  and  especially  of  this  last  one,  it  must  be 
confessed  that  it  is  hard  for  us  now  to  speak  with 
confidence.  Most  probable  it  appears  that  they  were 
intended  for  an  educational  purpose,  to  cultivate  in 
the  mind  of  the  people  the  sentiment  of  reverence  for 
the  order  established  in  nature  by  God.  For  what  the 
world  calls  the  order  of  nature  is  really  an  order 
appointed  by  God,  as  the  infinitely  wise  and  perfect 
One ;  hence,  as  nature  is  thus  a  manifestation  of  God, 
the  Hebrew  was  forbidden  to  seek  to  bring  about  that 
which  is  not  according  to  nature,  unnatural  commix- 
tures; and  from  this  point  of  view,  the  last  of  the 
three  precepts  appears  to  be  a  symbolic  reminder  of 
the  same  duty,  namely,  reverence  for  the  order  01 
nature,  as  being  an  order  determined  by  God. 


404  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

The  law  which  is  laid  down  in  vv.  20-22,  regarding 
the  sin  of  connection  with  a  bond-woman  betrothed 
to  a  husband,  apparently  refers  to  such  a  case  as  is 
mentioned  in  Exod.  xxi.  7,  8,  where  the  bond-maid 
is  betrothed  to  her  master,  while  yet,  because  of  her 
condition  of  bondage,  the  marriage  has  not  been  con- 
summated. For  the  same  sin  in  the  case  of  a  free  woman, 
where  both  were  proved  guilty,  for  each  of  them  the 
punishment  was  death  (Deut.  xxii.  23,  24).  In  this 
case,  because  the  woman's  position,  inasmuch  as  she 
was  not  free,  was  rather  that  of  a  concubine  than  of  a 
full  wife,  the  lighter  penalty  of  scourging  is  ordered 
for  both  of  the  guilty  persons.  Also,  since  this  was  a 
case  of  trespass  as  well,  in  which  the  rights  of  the 
master  to  whom  she  was  espoused  were  involved,  a 
guilt-offering  was  in  addition  required,  as  the  condition 
of  pardon. 

It  will  be  said,  and  truly,  that  by  this  law  slavery 
and  concubinage  are  to  a  certain  extent  recognised  by 
the  law ;  and  upon  this  fact  has  been  raised  an  objec- 
tion bearing  on  the  holiness  of  the  law-giver,  and,  by 
consequence,  on  the  Divine  origin  and  inspiration  of 
the  law.  Is  it  conceivable  that  the  holy  God  should 
have  given  a  law  for  the  regulation  of  two  so  evil 
institutions  ?  The  answer  has  been  furnished  us,  in 
principle,  by  our  Lord  (Matt.  xix.  8),  in  that  which  He 
said  concerning  the  analogous  case  of  the  law  of  Moses 
touching  divorce ;  which  law,  He  tells  us,  although  not 
according  to  the  perfect  ideal  of  right,  was  yet  given 
*'  because  of  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts."  That  is, 
although  it  was  not  the  best  law  ideally,  it  was  the 
best  practically,  in  view  of  the  low  moral  tone  of  the 
people  to  whom  it  was  given.  Precisely  so  it  was  in 
this  case.     Abstractly,  one  might   say  that   the  case 


xix.  1-37]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  (CONCLUDED).      405 

was  in  nothing  different  from  the  case  of  a  free  woman, 
mentioned  Deut.  xxii.  23,  24,  for  which  death  was  the 
appointed  punishment ;  but  practically,  in  a  community 
where  slavery  and  concubinage  were  long-settled  insti- 
tutions, and  the  moral  standard  was  still  low,  the  cases 
were  not  parallel.  A  law  which  would  carry  with  it 
the  moral  support  of  the  people  in  the  one  case,  and 
which  it  would  thus  be  possible  to  carry  into  effect, 
would  not  be  in  like  manner  supported  and  carried  into 
effect  in  the  other ;  so  that  the  result  of  greater  strict- 
ness in  theory  would,  in  actual  practice,  be  the  removal 
thereby  of  all  restriction  on  license.  On  the  other 
hand,  by  thus  appointing  herein  a  penalty  for  both  the 
guilty  parties  such  as  the  public  conscience  would 
approve,  God  taught  the  Hebrews  the  fundamental 
lesson  that  a  slave-girl  is  not  regarded  by  God  as  a 
mere  chattel ;  and  that  if,  because  of  the  hardness  of 
their  hearts,  concubinage  was  tolerated  for  a  time,  still 
the  slave-girl  must  not  be  treated  as  a  thing,  but  as  a 
person,  and  indiscriminate  license  could  not  be  permitted. 
And  thus,  it  is  of  greatest  moment  to  observe,  a  prin- 
ciple was  introduced  into  the  legislation,  which  in  its 
ultimate  logical  application  would  require  and  effect — 
as  in  due  time  it  has — the  total  abolition  of  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  wherever  the  authority  of  the  living 
God  is  truly  recognised. 

The  principle  of  the  Divine  government  which  is  here 
illustrated  is  one  of  exceeding  practical  importance  as  a 
model  for  us.  We  live  in  an  age  when,  everywhere  in 
Christendom,  the  cry  is  "  Reform ; "  and  there  are  many 
who  think  that  if  once  it  be  proved  that  a  thing  is  wrong, 
it  follows  by  necessary  consequence  that  the  immediate 
and  unqualified  legal  prohibition  of  that  wrong,  under 
such  penalty  as  the  wrong  may  deserve,  is  the  only 


4o6  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

thing  that  any  Christian  man  has  a  right  to  think  of. 
And  yet,  according  to  the  principle  illustrated  in  this  legis- 
lation, this  conclusion  in  such  cases  can  by  no  means 
be  taken  for  granted.     That  is  not  always  the  best  law 
practically  which  is  the  best  law  abstractly.     That  law 
is  the  best  which  shall  be  most  effective  in  diminishing 
a  given  evil,  under  the  existing  moral  condition  of  the 
community ;  and  it  is  often  a  matter  of  such  exceeding 
difficulty  to  determine  what  legislation  against  admitted 
sins  and  evils,  may  be  the  most  productive  of  good  in  a 
community  whose  moral  sense  is  dull  concerning  them, 
that  it  is  not  strange   that  the  best  of  men  are  often 
found  to  differ.     Remembering  this,  we  may  well  com- 
mend the  duty  of  a  more  charitable  judgment,  in  such 
cases,  than  one  often  hears  from  such  radical  reformers, 
who  seem  to  imagine  that  in  order  to  remove  an  evil 
all  that  is  necessary  is  to  pass  a  law  at  once  and  for  ever 
prohibiting  it;  and  who  therefore  hold  up  to  obloquy 
all  who  doubt  as  to  the  wisdom  and  duty  of  so  doing, 
as  the  enemies  of  truth  and  of  righteousness.     Moses, 
acting  under  direct  instruction  from  the  God  of  supreme 
wisdom  and  of  perfect  holiness,  was  far  wiser  than  such 
well-meaning  but  sadly  mistaken  social  reformers,  who 
would  fain  be  wiser  than  God. 

Next  follows  a  law  (vv.  23-25)  directing  that  when 
any  fruit  tree  is  planted,  the  Israelite  shall  not  eat  of  its 
fruit  for  the  first  three  years ;  that  the  fruit  of  the  fourth 
year  shall  be  wholly  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  '*  for  giving 
praise  unto  Jehovah ; "  and  that  only  after  that,  in  the 
fifth  year  of  its  bearing,  shall  the  husbandman  himself 
first  eat  of  its  fruit. 

The  explanation  of  this  peculiar  regulation  is  to  be 
found  in  a  special  application  of  the  principle  which 
rules  throughout  the  law ;  that  the  first-fruit,  whether 


xix.i-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  {CONCLUDED).      407 


the  first-born  of  man  or  beast,  or  the  first-fruits  of  the 
field,  shall  always  be  consecrated  unto  God.  But  in  this 
case  the  application  of  the  principle  is  modified  by  the 
famihar  fact  that  the  fruit  of  a  young  tree,  for  the  first 
few  years  of  its  bearing,  is  apt  to  be  imperfect ;  it  is  not 
yet  sufficiently  grown  to  yield  its  best  possible  product. 
Because  of  this,  in  those  years  it  could  not  be  given  to 
the  Lord,  for  He  must  never  be  served  with  any  but  the 
best  of  everything ;  and  thus  until  the  fruit  should  reach 
its  best,  so  as  to  be  worthy  of  presentation  to  the  Lord, 
the  Israelite  was  meanwhile  debarred  from  using  it. 
During  these  three  years  the  trees  are  said  to  be  ''as 
uncircumcised ; "  i.e.,  they  were  to  be  regarded  as  in  a 
condition  analogous  to  that  of  the  child  who  has  not 
yet  been  consecrated,  by  the  act  of  circumcision,  to  the 
Lord.  In  the  fourth  year,  however,  the  trees  were 
regarded  as  having  now  so  grown  as  to  yield  fruit  in 
perfection ;  hence,  the  principle  of  the  consecration  of 
the  first-fruit  now  applies,  and  all  the  fourth  year's 
product  is  given  to  the  Lord,  as  an  offering  of  thankful 
praise  to  Him  whose  power  in  nature  is  the  secret  of  all 
growth,  fruitfulness,  and  increase.  The  last  words  of 
this  law,  "  that  it  may  yield  unto  you  its  increase," 
evidently  refer  to  all  that  precedes.  Israel  is  to  obey 
this  law,  using  nothing  till  first  consecrated  to  the  Lord, 
in  order  to  a  blessing  in  these  very  gifts  of  God. 

The  moral  teaching  of  this  law,  when  it  is  thus  read 
in  the  light  of  the  general  principle  of  the  consecration 
of  the  first-fruits,  is  very  plain.  It  teaches,  as  in  all 
analogous  cases,  that  God  is  always  to  be  served  before 
ourselves;  and  that  not  grudgingly,  as  if  an  irksome 
tax  were  to  be  paid  to  the  Majesty  of  heaven,  but  in  the 
spirit  of  thanksgiving  and  praise  to  Him,  as  the  Giver  of 
**  every  good  and  perfect  gift."     It  further  instructs  us 


4o8  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

in  this  particular  instance,  that  the  people  of  God  are 
to  recognise  this  as  being  true  even  of  all  those  good 
things  which  come  to  us  under  the  forms  of  products  of 
nature. 

The  lesson  is  not  an  easy  one  for  faith ;  for  the 
constant  tendency,  never  stronger  than  in  our  own 
time,  is  to  substitute  ''Nature"  for  the  God  of  nature, 
as  if  nature  were  a  power  in  itself  and  apart  from  God, 
immanent  in  all  nature,  the  present  and  efficient  energy 
in  all  her  manifold  operations.  Very  fittingly,  thus,  do 
we  find  here  again  (ver.  25)  the  sanction  affixed  to 
this  law,  **  I  am  the  Lord  your  God  ! "  Jehovah,  your 
God  who  redeemed  you,  who  therefore  am  worthy  of 
all  thanksgiving  and  praise !  Jehovah,  your  God  in 
covenant,  who  gives  the  fruitful  seasons,  filling  your 
hearts  with  joy  and  gladness  !  Jehovah,  your  God,  who 
as  the  Lord  of  Nature,  and  the  Power  in  nature,  am 
abundantly  able  to  fulfil  the  promise  affixed  to  this 
command ! 

The  next  six  commands  are  evidently  grouped  together 
as  referring  to  various  distinctively  heathenish  customs, 
from  which  Israel,  as  a  people  holy  to  the  Lord,  was  to 
abstain.  The  prohibition  of  blood  (ver.  26)  is  repeated 
again,  not,  as  has  been  said,  in  a  stronger  form  than 
before,  but,  probably,  because  the  eating  of  blood  was 
connected  with  certain  heathenish  ceremonies,  both 
among  the  Shemitic  tribes  and  others.  The  next  two 
precepts  (ver.  26)  prohibit  every  kind  of  divination  and 
augury ;  practices  notoriously  common  with  the  heathen 
everywhere,  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times.  The  two 
precepts  which  follow,  forbidding  certain  fashions  of 
trimming  the  hair  and  beard,  may  appear  trivial  to 
many,  but  they  will  not  seem  so  to  any  one  who  will 
remember  how  common  among  heathen   peoples   has 


xix.  1-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  {CONCLUDED).     409 

been  the  custom,  as  in  those  days  among  the  Arabs, 
and  in  our  time  among  the  Hindoos,  to  trim  the  hair  or 
beard  in  a  particular  way,  in  order  thus  visibly  to  mark 
a  person  as  of  a  certain  religion,  or  as  a  worshipper  of 
a  certain  god.  The  command  means  that  the  Israelite 
was  not  only  to  worship  God  alone,  but  he  was  not  to 
adopt  a  fashion  in  dress  which,  because  commonly 
associated  with  idolatry,  might  thus  misrepresent  his 
real  position  as  a  worshipper  of  the  only  living  and 
true  God. 

'*  Cutting  the  flesh  for  the  dead  "  (ver.  28)  has  been 
very  widely  practised  by  heathen  peoples  in  all  ages. 
Such  immoderate  and  unseemly  expressions  of  grief 
were  prohibited  to  the  Israelite,  as  unworthy  of  a 
people  who  were  in  a  blessed  covenant  relation  with 
the  God  of  life  and  of  death.  Rather,  recognising  that 
death  is  of  God's  ordination,  he  was  to  accept  in 
patience  and  humility  the  stroke  of  God's  hand ;  not, 
indeed,  without  sorrow,  but  yet  in  meekness  and  quiet- 
ness of  spirit,  trusting  in  the  God  of  life.  The  thought 
is  only  a  less  clear  expression  of  the  New  Testament 
word  (i  Thess.  iv.  13)  that  the  believer  ^^  sorrow  not, 
even  as  the  rest,  which  have  no  hope."  Also,  probably, 
in  this  prohibition,  as  certainly  in  the  next  (ver.  28), 
it  is  suggested  that  as  the  Israelite  was  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  heathen  by  full  consecration,  not 
only  of  the  soul,  but  also  of  the  body,  to  the  Lord,  he 
was  by  that  fact  inhibited  from  marring  or  defacing  in 
any  way  the  integrity  of  his  body. 

In  general,  we  may  say,  then,  that  the  central 
thought  which  binds  this  group  of  precepts  together, 
is  the  obligation,  not  merely  to  abstain  from  every- 
thing directly  idolatrous,  but  also  from  all  such  cus- 
toms as  are,   in  fact,  rooted  in  or  closely  associated 


410  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

with  idolatry.  On  the  same  principle,  the  Christian  is 
to  beware  of  all  fashions  and  practices,  even  though 
they  may  be  in  themselves  indifferent,  which  yet,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  are  specially  characteristic  of  the 
worldly  and  ungodly  element  in  society.  The  principle 
assumed  in  these  prohibitions  thus  imposes  upon  all 
who  would  be  holy  to  the  Lord,  in  all  ages,  a  firm 
restriction.  The  thoughtless  desire  of  many,  at  any 
risk,  to  be  ''in  the  fashion,"  must  be  unwaveringly 
denied.  The  reason  which  is  so  often  given  by  pro- 
fessing Christians  for  indulgence  in  such  cases,  that 
"  all  the  world  does  so,"  may  often  be  the  strongest 
possible  reason  for  declining  to  follow  the  fashion. 
No  servant  of  God  should  ever  be  seen  in  any  part 
of  the  livery  of  Satan's  servants.  That  God  does  not 
think  these  "little  things"  always  of  trifling  conse- 
quence, we  are  reminded  by  the  repetition  here,  for 
the  tenth  time  in  this  chapter,  of  the  words,  '*  I  am 
the  Lord  ! " 

Next  (ver.  29)  follows  the  prohibition  of  the  horrible 
custom,  still  practised  among  heathen  peoples,  of  the 
prostitution  of  a  daughter  by  a  parent.  It  is  here 
enforced  by  the  consideration  of  the  public  weal:  ''lest 
the  land  fall  to  whoredom,  and  the  land  become  full 
of  wickedness."  Assuredly,  that  a  land  in  which  such 
harlotry  as  this,  in  which  all  the  most  sacred  relations 
of  life  are  trampled  in  the  mire,  would  be  nothing  less 
than  a  land  full  of  wickedness,  is  so  evident  as  to 
require  no  comment. 

Herewith  now  begins  the  fourth  and  last  division 
of  this  chapter  (vv.  30-37),  with  a  repetition  of  the 
injunction  to  keep  the  Sabbaths  of  the  Lord,  and 
reverence  His  sanctuary.  The  emphasis  on  this  com- 
mand, shown  by  its  repetition  in  this  chapter,  and  the 


xix.i-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  {CONCLUDED).     411 

very  prominent  place  which  it  occupies  both  in  the  law 
and  the  prophets,  certainly  suggests  that  in  the  mind 
of  God,  reverence  for  the  Sabbath  and  for  the  place 
where  God  is  worshipped,  has  much  to  do  with  the 
promotion  of  holiness  of  life,  and  the  maintenance  of 
a  high  degree  of  domestic  and  social  morality.  Nor 
is  it  difficult  to  see  why  this  should  be  so.  For  how- 
ever the  day  of  holy  rest  may  be  kept,  and  the  place 
of  Divine  worship  be  regarded  with  only  an  outward 
reverence  by  many,  yet  the  fact  cannot  be  disputed, 
that  the  observance  of  a  weekly  sabbatic  rest  from 
ordinary  secular  occupations,  and  the  maintenance  of 
a  spirit  of  reverence  for  sacred  places  or  for  sacred 
times,  has,  and  must  have,  a  certain  and  most  happy 
tendency  to  keep  the  God  of  the  Sabbath  and  the 
God  of  the  sanctuary  before  the  mind  of  men,  and 
thus  imposes  an  effective  check  upon  unrestrained 
godlessness  and  reckless  excesses  of  iniquity.  The 
diverse  condition  of  things  in  various  parts  of  modern 
Christendom,  as  related  to  the  more  or  less  careful 
observance  of  the  weekly  religious  rest,  is  full  of  both 
instruction  and  warning  to  any  candid  mind  upon  this 
subject.  There  is  no  restraint  on  immorality  like  the 
frequent  remembrance  of  God  and  the  spirit  of  reverence 
for  Him. 

Verse  3 1  prohibits  all  inquiring  of  them  that  "  have 
familiar  spirits,"  and  of  "  wizards,"  who  pretend  to 
make  revelations  through  the  help  of  supernatural 
powers.  According  to  i  Sam.  xxviii.  7-1 1,  and  Isa. 
viii.  19,  the  *' familiar  spirit"  is  a  supposed  spirit  of 
a  dead  man,  from  whom  one  professes  to  be  able  to 
give  communications  to  the  living.  This  pretended 
commerce  with  the  spirits  of  the  dead  has  been  common 
enough  in  heathenism  always,  and  it  is  not  strange 


412  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

to  find  it  mentioned  here,  when  Israel  was  to  be  in  so 
intimate  relations  with  heathen  peoples.  But  it  is 
truly  most  extraordinary  that  in  Christian  lands,  as 
especially  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  that 
in  the  full  light,  religious  and  intellectual,  of  the  last 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  such  a  prohibition 
should  be  fully  as  pertinent  as  in  Israel  !  For  no 
words  could  more  precisely  describe  the  pretensions 
of  the  so-called  modern  spiritualism,  which  within  the 
last  half  century  has  led  away  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  deluded  souls,  and  those,  in  many  cases,  not  from 
the  ignorant  and  degraded,  but  from  circles  which 
boast  of  more  than  average  culture  and  intellectual 
enlightenment.  And  inasmuch  as  experience  sadly 
shows  that  even  those  who  profess  to  be  disciples  of 
Christ  are  in  danger  of  being  led  away  by  our  modern 
wizards  and  traffickers  with  familiar  spirits,  it  is  by 
no  means  unnecessary  to  observe  that  there  is  not  the 
slightest  reason  to  believe  that  this  which  was  rigidly 
forbidden  by  God  in  the  fifteenth  century  B.C.,  can  now 
be  well-pleasing  to  Him  in  the  nineteenth  century  a.d. 
And  those  who  have  most  carefully  watched  the  moral 
developments  of  this  latter-day  delusion,  will  most 
appreciate  the  added  phrase  which  speaks  of  this  as 
*'  defiling"  a  man. 

Verse  32  enjoins  reverence  for  the  aged,  and  closely 
connects  it  with  the  fear  of  God.  *'  Thou  shalt  rise 
up  before  the  hoary  head,  and  honour  the  face  of  the 
old  man,  and  thou  shalt  fear  thy  God  :  I  am  the  Lord." 

A  virtue  this  is  which — it  must  be  with  shame 
confessed — although  often  displayed  in  an  illustrious 
manner  among  the  heathen,  in  many  parts  of  Chris- 
tendom has  sadly  decayed.  In  many  lands  one  only 
needs  to  travel  in  any  crowded  conveyance  to  observe 


xix.i-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  {CONCLUDED).     413 

how  far  it  is  from  the  thoughts  of  many  of  the  young 
"  to  rise  up  before  the  hoary  head,  and  honour  the 
face  of  the  old  man."  So  manifest  are  the  facts  that 
one  hears  from  competent  and  thoughtful  observers 
of  the  tendencies  of  our  times  no  lamentation  more 
frequently  than  just  this,  for  the  concurrent  decay  of 
reverence  for  the  aged  and  reverence  for  God.  No 
more  beautiful  remarks  on  these  w^ords  have  we 
found  than  the  words  quoted  by  Dr.  H.  Bonar,  com- 
menting on  this  verse  :  "  Lo  !  the  shadow  of  eternity  ! 
for  one  cometh  who  is  almost  in  eternity  already.  His 
head  and  his  beard,  white  as  snow,  indicate  his  speedy 
appearance  before  the  Ancient  of  Days,  the  hair  of 
whose  head  is  as  pure  wool." 

In  this  last  command  is  also,  no  doubt,  contained 
the  thought  of  the  comparative  weakness  and  physical 
infirmity  of  the  aged,  which  is  thus  commended  in  a 
special  way  to  our  tender  regard.  And  thus  this  senti- 
ment of  kindly  sympathy  for  all  who  are  subject  to 
any  kind  of  disability  naturally  prepares  the  way  for 
the  injunction  (vv.  33,  34)  to  regard  ^'the  stranger" 
in  the  midst  of  Israel,  who  was  debarred  from  holding 
land,  and  from  many  privileges,  with  special  feelings 
of  good-will.  "  If  a  stranger  sojourn  with  thee  in  your 
land,  ye  shall  not  do  him  wrong.  The  stranger  that 
sojourneth  with  you  shall  be  unto  you  as  the  home- 
born  among  you,  and  thou  shalt  love  him  as  thyself; 
for  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt :  I  am  the 
Lord  your  God." 

The  Israelite  was  not  to  misinterpret,  then,  the  re- 
strictions which  the  theocratic  law  imposed  upon  such. 
These  might  be  no  doubt  necessary  for  a  moral  reason ; 
but,  nevertheless,  no  man  was  to  argue  that  the  law 
justified   him  in  dealing   hardly  with  aliens.     So   far 


414  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


from  this,  the  Israelite  was  to  regard  the  stranger  with 
the  same  kindly  feelings  as  if  he  were  one  of  his  own 
people.  And  it  is  most  instructive  to  observe  that  this 
particular  case  is  made  the  occasion  of  repeating  that 
most  perfect  and  comprehensive  law  of  universal  love, 
"Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself;"  and  this 
the  more  they  were  to  do  that  they  too  had  been 
^'strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt." 

Last  of  all  the  injunctions  in  this  chapter  (w.  35, 
36)  comes  the  command  to  absolute  righteousness  in 
the  administration  of  justice,  and  in  all  matters  of 
buying  and  selling ;  followed  (ver.  37)  by  a  concluding 
charge  to  obedience,  thus :  '^  Ye  shall  do  no  unright- 
eousness in  judgment,  in  meteyard,  in  weight,  or  in 
measure.  Just  balances,  just  weights,  a  just  ephah, 
and  a  just  hin,  shall  ye  have  :  I  am  the  Lord  your  God, 
which  brought  you  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  And  ye 
shall  observe  all  My  statutes,  and  all  My  judgments, 
and  do  them :  I  am  the  Lord." 

The  ephah  is  named  here,  of  course,  as  a  standard 
of  dry  measure,  and  the  hin  as  a  standard  of  liquid 
measure.  These  commandments  are  illustrated  in  a 
graphic  way  by  the  parallel  passage  in  Deut.  xxv.  13, 
14,  which  reads  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  have  in  thy  bag 
divers  weights,  a  great  and  a  small.  Thou  shalt  not 
have  in  thine  house  divers  measures,  a  great  and  a 
small ; "  i.e.,  one  set  for  use  in  buying,  and  another  set 
for  use  in  selling.  This  charge  is  there  enforced  by 
the  same  promise  to  honesty  in  trade  which  is  annexed 
to  the  fifth  commandment,  namely,  length  of  days; 
and,  furthermore,  by  the  declaration  that  all  who  thus 
cheat  in  trade  ^'  are  an  abomination  unto  the  Lord." 

How  much  Israel  needed  this  law  all  their  history 
has  shown.     In  the  days  of  Amos  it  was  a  part  of  his 


xix.  1-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS   {CONCLUDED).     415 


charge  against  the  ten  tribes  (viii.  5),  for  which  the 
Lord  declares  that  He  will  "  make  the  land  to  tremble, 
and  every  one  in  it  to  mourn,"  that  they  **  make  the  ephah 
small,  and  the  shekel  great,"  and  'Meal  falsely  with 
balances  of  deceit."  So  also  Micah,  a  little  later, 
represents  the  Lord  as  calling  Judah  to  account  for 
supposing  that  God,  the  Holy  One,  can  be  satisfied  with 
burnt-offerings  and  guilt-offerings;  indignantly  asking 
(vi.  10,  11),  ^*  Are  there  yet  the  treasures  of  wickedness 
in  the  house  of  the  wicked,  and  the  scant  measure  that 
is  abominable  ?  " 

But  it  is  not  Israel  alone  which  has  needed,  and  still 
needs,  to  hear  iterated  this  command,  for  the  sin  is 
found  in  every  people,  even  in  every  city,  one  might 
say  in  every  town,  in  Christendom ;  and — we  have  to 
say  it — often  with  men  who  make  a  certain  profession 
of  regard  for  religion.  All  such,  however  religious  in 
certain  ways,  have  special  need  to  remember  that 
"  without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord ; "  and 
that  holiness  is  now  exactly  what  it  was  when  the 
Levitical  law  was  given  out.  As,  on  the  one  side,  it 
is  inspired  by  reverence  and  fear  toward  God,  so,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  requires  love  to  the  neighbour  as  to 
one's  self,  and  such  conduct  as  that  will  secure.  It  is 
of  no  account,  therefore,  to  keep  the  Sabbath — in  a  way 
— and  reverence — outwardly — the  sanctuary,  and  then 
on  the  week-day  water  milk,  adulterate  medicines, 
sugars,  and  other  foods,  slip  the  yard-stick  in  measur- 
ing, tip  the  balance  in  weighing,  and  buy  with  one 
weight  or  measure  and  sell  with  another,  "  water " 
stocks  and  gamble  in  "  margins,"  as  the  manner  of 
many  is.  God  hates,  and  even  honest  atheists  despise, 
religion  of  this  kind.  Strange  notions,  truly,  of  reli- 
gion  have  men  who  have  not   yet  discovered   that  it 


4i6  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

has  to  do  with  just  such  commonplace,  every-day 
matters  as  these,  and  have  never  yet  understood  how 
certain  it  is  that  a  religion  which  is  only  used  on 
Sundays  has  no  holiness  in  it ;  and  therefore,  when 
the  day  comes,  as  it  is  coming,  that  shall  try  every 
man's  work  as  by  fire,  it  will,  in  the  fierce  heat  of 
Jehovah's  judgment,  be  shrivelled  into  ashes  as  a 
spider's  web  in  a  flame,  and  the  man  and  his  work 
shall  perish  together. 

And  herewith  this  chapter  closes.  Such  is  the  law 
of  holiness  !  Obligatory,  let  us  not  forget,  in  the  spirit 
of  all  its  requirements,  to-day,  unchanged  and  unchange- 
able, because  the  Holy  God,  whose  law  it  is,  is  Himself 
unchangeable.  Man  may  be  sinful,  and  because  of  sin 
be  weak ;  but  there  is  not  a  hint  of  compromise  with 
sin,  on  this  account,  by  any  abatement  of  its  claims. 
At  every  step  of  life  this  law  confronts  us.  Whether 
we  be  in  the  House  of  God,  in  acts  of  worship,  it 
challenges  us  there ;  or  in  the  field,  at  our  work,  it 
commands  us  there;  in  social  intercouse  with  our 
fellow-men,  in  our  business  in  bank  or  shop,  with  our 
friends  or  with  strangers  and  aliens,  at  home  or  abroad, 
we  are  never  out  of  the  reach  of  its  requirements.  We 
can  no  more  escape  from  under  its  authority  than 
from  under  the  overarching  heaven  !  What  sobering 
thoughts  are  these  for  sinners  !  What  self-humiliation 
should  this  law  cause  us,  when  we  think  what  we 
are !  what  intensity  of  aspiration,  when  we  think  of 
what  the  Holy  One  would  have  us  be,  holy  like 
Himself! 

The  closing  words  above  given  (ver.  37)  assert  the 
authority  of  the  Law-giver,  and,  by  their  reminder  of 
the  great  deliverance  from  Egypt,  appeal,  as  a  motive  to 
faithful  and  holy  obedience,  to  the  purest  sentiment  of 


xix.  1-37.]     THE  LAW  OF  HOLINESS  {CONCLUDED).      417 

grateful  love  for  undeserved  and  distinguishing  mercy. 
And  this  is  only  the  Old  Testament  form  of  a  New 
Testament  argument.  For  we  read,  concerning  our 
deliverance  from  a  worse  than  Egyptian  bondage  (i 
Peter  i.  15-19) :  "Like  as  He  which  called  you  is  holy, 
be  ye  yourselves  also  holy  in  all  manner  of  living ; 
because  it  is  written,  Ye  shall  be  holy  ;  for  I  am  holy. 
And  if  ye  call  on  Him  as  Father,  who  without  respect 
of  persons  judgeth  according  to  each  man's  work,  pass 
the  time  of  your  sojourning  in  fear :  knowing  that  ye 
were  redeemed,  not  with  corruptible  things,  as  silver 
or  gold,  .  .  .  but  with  precious  blood,  as  of  a  lamb 
without  blemish  and  without  spot,  even  the  blood  of 
Christ." 


27 


CHAPTER   XXII. 

PENAL  SANCTIONS, 
Lev.  XX.  1-27. 

IN  no  age  or  community  has  it  been  found  sufficient, 
to  secure  obedience,  that  one  should  appeal  to  the 
conscience  of  men,  or  depend,  as  a  sufficient  motive, 
upon  the  natural  painful  consequences  of  violated  law. 
Wherever  there  is  civil  and  criminal  law,  there,  in  all 
cases,  human  government,  whether  in  its  lowest  or  in 
its  most  highly  developed  forms,  has  found  it  necessary 
to  declare  penalties  for  various  crimes.  It  is  the 
peculiar  interest  of  this  chapter  that  it  gives  us  certain 
important  sections  of  the  penal  code  of  a  people  whose 
government  was  theocratic,  whose  only  King  was  the 
Most  Holy  and  Righteous  God.  In  view  of  the 
manifold  difficulties  which  are  inseparable  from  the 
enactment  and  enforcement  of  a  just  and  equitable 
penal  code,  it  must  be  to  every  man  who  believes  that 
Israel,  in  that  period  of  its  history,  was,  in  the  most 
literal  sense,  a  theocracy,  a  matter  of  the  highest  civil 
and  governmental  interest  to  observe  what  penalties 
for  crime  were  ordained  by  infinite  wisdom,  goodness, 
and  righteousness  as  the  law  of  that  nation. 

This  penal  code  (vv.  1-2 1)  is  given  in  two  sections. 
Of  these,  the  first  (vv.  1-6)  relates  to  those  who  give 
of  their  seed  to  Molech,  or  who  are  accessory  to  such 


XX.  1-27.]  PENAL  SANCTIONS.  419 


crime  by  their  concealment  of  the  fact ;  and  also  to 
those  who  consult  wizards  or  familiar  spirits.  Under 
this  last  head  also  comes  ver.  27,  which  appears  to 
have  become  misplaced,  as  it  follows  the  formal  conclu- 
sion of  the  chapter,  and  by  its  subject — the  penalty  for 
the  wizard,  or  him  who  claims  to  have  a  familiar  spirit 
— evidently  belongs  immediately  after  ver.  6. 

The  second  section  (w.  9-21)  enumerates,  first 
(vv.  9-16),  other  cases  for  which  capital  punishment 
was  ordered;  and  then  (vv.  17-21)  certain  offences  for 
which  a  lesser  penalty  is  prescribed.  These  two  sec- 
tions are  separated  (vv.  7,  8)  by  a  command,  in  view 
of  these  penalties,  to  sanctification  of  life,  and  obedience 
to  the  Lord,  as  the  God  who  has  redeemed  and  conse- 
crated Israel  to  be  a  nation  to  Himself. 

These  penal  sections  are  followed  (vv.  22-26)  by 
a  general  conclusion  to  the  whole  law  of  holiness,  as 
contained  in  these  three  chapters,  as  also  to  the  law 
concerning  clean  and  unclean  meats  (xi.)  ;  which  would 
thus  appear  to  have  been  originally  connected  more 
closely  than  now  with  these  chapters.  This  closing 
part  of  the  section  consists  of  an  exhortation  and 
argument  against  disobedience,  in  walking  after  the 
wicked  customs  of  the  Canaanitish  nations ;  enforced 
by  the  declaration  that  their  impending  expulsion  was 
brought  about  by  God  in  punishment  for  their  practice 
of  these  crimes ;  and,  also,  by  the  reminder  that  God 
in  His  special  grace  had  separated  them  to  be  a  holy 
nation  to  Himself,  and  that  He  was  about  to  give  them 
the  good  land  of  Canaan  as  their  possession. 

It  is  perhaps  hardly  necessary  to  observe  that  the 
law  of  this  chapter  does  not  profess  to  give  the  penal 
code  of  Israel  with  completeness.  Murder,  for  example, 
is    not    mentioned   here,    though    death   is    expressly 


420  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

denounced  against  it  elsewhere  (Numb.  xxxv.  31).  So, 
again,  in  the  Book  of  Exodus  (xxi.  15)  death  is  declared 
as  the  penalty  for  smiting  father  or  mother.  Indeed, 
the  chapter  itself  contains  evidence  that  it  is  essentially 
a  selection  of  certain  parts  of  a  more  extended  code, 
which  has  been  nowhere  preserved  in  its  entirety. 

In  this  chapter  death  is  ordained  as  the  penalty  for 
the  following  crimes :  viz.,  giving  of  one's  seed  to 
Molech  (vv.  2-5)  ;  professing  to  be  a  wizard,  or  to 
have  dealings  with  the  spirits  of  the  dead  (ver.  27) ; 
adultery,  incest  with  a  mother  or  step-mother,  a 
daughter-in-law  or  mother-in-law  (vv.  10-12,  14) ; 
and  sodomy  and  bestiality  (ver.  13).  In  a  single  case 
— that  of  incest  with  a  wife's  mother — it  is  added 
(ver.  14)  that  both  the  guilty  parties  shall  be  burnt 
with  fire ;  i.e.y  after  the  usual  infliction  of  death  by 
stoning.  Of  him  who  becomes  accessory  by  conceal- 
ment to  the  crime  of  sacrifice  to  Molech,  it  is  said 
(ver.  5)  that  God  Himself  will  set  His  face  against 
that  man,  and  will  cut  off  both  the  man  himself  and 
his  family.  The  same  phraseology  is  used  (ver.  6)  of 
those  who  consult  famihar  spirits  ;  and  the  cutting  off 
is  also  threatened,  ver.  18.  The  law  concerning  incest 
with  a  full-  or  half-sister  requires  (ver.  17)  that  this 
excision  shall  be  ^'  in  the  sight  of  the  children  of  their 
people  ; "  i.e.,  that  the  sentence  shall  be  executed  in 
the  most  public  way,  thus  to  affix  the  more  certainly 
to  the  crime  the  stigma  of  an  indelible  ignominy  and 
disgrace.  A  lesser  grade  of  penalty  is  attached  to  an 
alliance  with  the  wife  of  an  uncle  or  of  a  brother  ;  in  the 
latter  case  (ver.  21)  that  they  shall  be  childless,  in  the 
former  (ver.  20),  that  they  shall  die  childless ;  that  is, 
though  they  have  children,  they  shall  all  be  prematurely 
cut  off;  none  shall  outlive  their  parents.     To   incest 


XX.  1-270  PENAL  SANCTIONS.  421 

with  an  aunt  by  blood  no  specific  penalty  is  affixed ; 
it  is  only  said  that  "they  shall  bear  their  iniquity/'  i.e., 
God  will  hold  them  guilty. 

The  chapter,  directly  or  indirectly,  casts  no  little 
light  on  some  most  fundamental  and  practical  questions 
regarding  the  administration  of  justice  in  dealing  with 
criminals. 

We  may  learn  here  what,  in  the  mind  of  the  King 
of  kings,  is  the  primary  object  of  the  punishment  of 
criminals  against  society.  Certainly  there  is  no  hint 
in  this  code  of  law  that  these  penalties  were  specially 
intended  for  the  reformation  of  the  offender.  Were 
this  so,  we  should  not  find  the  death-penalty  applied 
with  such  unsparing  severity.  This  does  not  indeed 
mean  that  the  reformation  of  the  criminal  was  a  matter 
of  no  concern  to  the  Lord ;  we  know  to  the  contrary. 
But  one  cannot  resist  the  conviction  in  reading  this 
chapter,  as  also  other  similar  portions  of  the  law,  that 
in  a  governmental  point  of  view  this  was  not  the 
chief  object  of  punishment.  Even  where  the  penalty 
was  not  death,  the  reformation  of  the  guilty  persons 
is  in  no  way  brought  before  us  as  an  object  of  the 
penal  sentence.  In  the  governmental  aspect  of  the 
case,  this  is,  at  least,  so  far  in  the  background  that  it 
does  not  once  come  into  view. 

In  our  day,  however,  an  increasing  number  maintain 
that  the  death-penalty  ought  never  to  be  inflicted, 
because,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  precludes  the 
possibility  of  the  criminal  being  reclaimed  and  made 
a  useful  member  of  society ;  and  so,  out  of  regard  to 
this  and  other  like  humanitarian  considerations,  in  not 
a  few  instances,  the  death  penalty,  even  for  wilful 
murder,  has  been  abrogated.  It  is  thus,  to  a  Christian 
citizen,  of  very  practical  concern  to  observe  that  in  this 


422  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


theocratic  penal  code  there  is  not  so  much  as  an  allusion 
to  the  reformation  of  the  criminal,  as  one  object  which 
by  means  of  punishment  it  was  intended  to  secure. 
Penalty  was  to  be  inflicted,  according  to  this  code, 
without  any  apparent  reference  to  its  bearing  on  this 
matter.  The  wisdom  of  the  Omniscient  King  of  Israel, 
therefore,  must  certainly  have  contemplated  in  the 
punishment  of  crime  some  object  or  objects  of  more 
weighty  moment  than  this. 

What  those  objects  were,  it  does  not  seem  hard  to 
discern.  First  and  supreme  in  the  intention  of  this 
law  is  the  satisfaction  of  outraged  justice,  and  of  the 
regal  majesty  of  the  supreme  and  holy  God,  defied ; 
the  vindication  of  the  holiness  of  the  Most  High  against 
that  wickedness  of  men  which  would  set  at  nought 
the  Holy  One  and  overturn  that  moral  order  which 
He  has  established.  Again  and  again  the  crime  itself 
is  given  as  the  reason  for  the  penalty,  inasmuch  as  by 
such  iniquity  in  the  midst  of  Israel  the  holy  sanctuary 
of  God  among  them  was  profaned.  We  read,  for 
example,  "  I  will  cut  him  off  .  .  .  because  he  hath 
defiled  My  sanctuary,  and  hath  profaned  My  holy 
name;"  "they  have  wrought  confusion,"  i.e.,  in  the 
moral  and  physical  order  of  the  family  ;  ^'  their  blood 
shall  be  upon  them  ;  "  "  they  have  committed  abomina- 
tion ;  they  shall  surely  be  put  to  death  ; "  "  it  is  a 
shameful  thing  ;  they  shall  be  cut  off."  Such  are  the 
expressions  which  again  and  again  ring  through  this 
chapter;  and  they  teach  with  unmistakable  clearness 
that  the  prime  object  of  the  Divine  King  of  Israel  in 
the  punishment  was,  not  the  reformation  of  the  indivi- 
dual sinner,  but  the  satisfaction  of  justice  and  the  vindi- 
cation of  the  majesty  of  broken  law.  And  if  we  have  no 
more  explicit  statement  of  the  matter  here,  we  yet  have 


XX.  1-27.]  PENAL  SANCTIONS.  423 

it  elsewhere;  as  in  Numb.  xxxv.  33,  where  we  are 
expressly  told  that  the  death-penalty  to  be  visited  with 
unrelenting  severity  on  the  murderer  is  of  the  nature 
of  an  expiation.  Very  clear  and  solemn  are  the  words, 
"  Blood,  it  polluteth  the  land :  and  no  expiation  can 
be  made  for  the  land  for  the  blood  that  is  shed  therein, 
but  by  the  blood  of  him  that  shed  it." 

But  if  this  is  set  forth  as  the  fundamental  reason  for 
the  infliction  of  the  punishment,  it  is  not  represented 
as  the  only  object.  If,  as  regards  the  criminal  himself, 
the  punishment  is  a  satisfaction  and  expiation  to  justice 
for  his  crime,  on  the  other  hand,  as  regards  the  people, 
the  punishment  is  intended  for  their  moral  good  and 
purification.  This  is  expressly  stated,  as  in  ver.  14: 
"They  shall  be  burnt  with  fire,  that  there  be  no 
wickedness  among  you."  Both  of  these  principles  are 
of  such  a  nature  that  they  must  be  of  perpetual  validity. 
The  government  or  legislative  power  that  loses  sight 
of  either  of  them  is  certain  to  go  wrong,  and  the 
people  will  be  sure,  sooner  or  later,  to  suffer  in  morals 
by  the  error. 

In  the  light  we  have  now,  it  is  easy  to  see  what  are 
the  principles  according  to  which,  in  various  cases,  the 
punishments  were  measured  out.  Evidently,  in  the 
first  place,  the  penalty  was  determined,  even  as  equity 
demands,  by  the  intrinsic  heinousness  of  the  crime. 
With  the  possible  exception  of  a  single  case,  it  is  easy 
to  see  this.  No  one  will  question  the  horrible  iniquity 
of  the  sacrifice  of  innocent  children  to  Molech ;  or  of 
incest  with  a  mother,  or  of  sodomy,  or  bestiality.  A 
second  consideration  which  evidently  had  place,  was 
the  danger  involved  in  each  crime  to  the  moral  and 
spiritual  well-being  of  the  community;  and,  we  may 
add,  in  the  third  place,  also  the  degree  to  which  the 


424  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

people  were  likely  to  be  exposed  to  the  contagion  of 
certain  crimes  prevalent  in  the  nations  immediately 
about  them. 

But  although  these  principles  are  manifestly  so 
equitable  and  benevolent  as  to  be  valid  for  all  ages, 
Christendom  seems  to  be  forgetting  the  fact.  The 
modern  penal  codes  vary  as  widely  from  the  Mosaic 
in  respect  of  their  great  leniency,  as  those  of  a  few 
centuries  ago  in  respect  of  their  undiscriminating 
severity.  In  particular,  the  past  few  generations  have 
seen  a  great  change  with  regard  to  the  infliction  of 
capital  punishment.  Formerly,  in  England,  for  ex- 
ample, death  was  inflicted,  with  intolerable  injustice, 
for  a  large  number  of  comparatively  trivial  offences ; 
the  death-penalty  is  now  restricted  to  high  treason  and 
killing  with  malice  aforethought ;  while  in  some  parts 
of  Christendom  it  is  already  wholly  abolished.  In  the 
Mosaic  law,  according  to  this  chapter  and  other  parts  of 
the  law,  it  was  much  more  extensively  inflicted,  though, 
it  may  be  noted  in  passing,  always  without  torture.  In 
this  chapter  it  is  made  the  penalty  for  actual  or  con- 
structive idolatry,  for  sorcery,  etc.,  for  cursing  father 
or  mother,  for  adultery,  for  the  grosser  degrees  of 
incest,  and  for  sodomy  and  bestiality.  To  this  list 
of  capital  offences  the  law  elsewhere  adds,  not  only 
murder,  but  blasphemy,  sabbath-breaking,  unchastity 
in  a  betrothed  woman  when  discovered  after  marriage, 
rape,  rebellion  against  a  priest  or  judge,  and  man- 
stealing. 

As  regards  the  crimes  specified  in  this  particular 
chapter,  the  criminal  law  of  modern  Christendom  does 
not  inflict  the  penalty  of  death  in  a  single  possible 
case  here  mentioned ;  and,  to  the  mind  of  many,  the 
contrasted  severity  of  the  Mosaic  code  presents  a  grave 


XX.  1-27-]  PENAL  SANCTIONS.  425 


difficulty.  And  yet,  if  one  believes,  on  the  authority  of 
the  teaching  of  Christ,  that  the  theocratic  government 
of  Israel  is  not  a  fable,  but  a  historic  fact,  although  he 
may  still  have  much  difficulty  in  recognising  the  right- 
eousness of  this  code,  he  will  be  slow  on  this  account 
either  to  renounce  his  faith  in  the  Divine  authority  of 
this  chapter,  or  to  impugn  the  justice  of  the  holy  King 
of  Israel  in  charging  Him  with  undue  severity ;  and 
will  rather  patiently  await  some  other  solution  of  the 
problem,  than  the  denial  of  the  essential  equity  of  these 
laws.  But  there  are  several  considerations  which,  for 
many,  will  greatly  lessen,  if  they  do  not  wholly  remove, 
the  difficulty  which  the  case  presents. 

In  the  first  place,  as  regards  the  punishment  of 
idolatry  with  death,  we  have  to  remember  that,  from  a 
theocratic  point  of  view,  idolatry  was  essentially  high 
treason,  the  most  formal  repudiation  possible  of  the 
supreme  authority  of  Israel's  King.  If,  even  in  our 
modern  states,  the  gravity  of  the  issues  involved  in 
high  treason  has  led  men  to  believe  that  death  is  not 
too  severe  a  penalty  for  an  offence  aimed  directly  at 
the  subversion  of  governmental  order,  how  much  more 
must  this  be  admitted  when  the  government  is  not  of 
fallible  man,  but  of  the  most  holy  and  infallible  God  ? 
And  when,  besides  this,  we  recall  the  atrocious  cruel- 
ties and  revolting  impurities  which  were  inseparably 
associated  with  that  idolatry,  we  shall  have  still  less 
difficulty  in  seeing  that  it  was  just  that  the  worshipper 
of  Molech  should  die.  And  as  decreeing  the  penalty  of 
death  for  sorcery  and  similar  practices,  it  is  probable 
that  the  reason  for  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  close  con- 
nection of  these  with  the  prevailing  idolatry. 

But  it  is  in  regard  to  crimes  against  the  integrity 
and  purity  of  the  family  that  we  find  the  most  im- 


426  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

pressive  contrast  between  this  penal  code  and  those 
of  modern  times.  Although,  unhappily,  adultery  and, 
less  commonly,  incest,  and  even,  rarely,  the  unnatural 
crimes  mentioned  in  this  chapter,  are  not  unknown  in 
modern  Christendom,  yet,  while  the  law  of  Moses 
punished  all  these  with  death,  modern  law  treats  them 
with  comparative  leniency,  or  even  refuses  to  regard 
some  forms  of  these  offences  as  crimes.  What  then  ? 
Shall  we  hasten  to  the  conclusion  that  we  have 
advanced  on  Moses  ?  that  this  law  was  certainly 
unjust  in  its  severity  ?  or  is  it  possible  that  modern  law 
is  at  fault,  in  that  it  has  fallen  below  those  standards  of 
righteousness  which  rule  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ? 

One  would  think  that  by  any  man  who  believes  in 
the  Divine  origin  of  the  theocracy  only  one  answer 
could  be  given.  Assuredly,  one  cannot  suppose  that 
God  judged  of  a  crime  with  undue  severity ;  and  if 
not,  is  not  then  Christendom,  as  it  were,  summoned  by 
this  penal  code  of  the  theocracy — after  making  all  due 
allowance  for  different  conditions  ©f  society — to  revise 
its  estimate  of  the  moral  gravity  of  these  and  other 
offences  ?  In  these  days  of  continually  progressive 
relaxation  of  the  laws  regulating  the  relations  of  the 
sexes,  this  seems  indeed  to  be  one  of  the  chief  lessons 
from  this  chapter  of  Leviticus  ;  namely,  that  in  God's 
sight  sins  against  the  seventh  commandment  are  not 
the  comparative  trifles  which  much  over-charitable  and 
easy-going  morality  imagines,  but  crimes  of  the  first 
order  of  heinousness.  We  do  well  to  heed  this  fact, 
that  not  merely  unnatural  crimes,  such  as  sodomy, 
bestiality,  and  the  grosser  forms  of  incest,  but  adultery, 
is  by  God  ranked  in  the  same  category  as  murder.  Is 
it  strange  ?  For  what  are  crimes  of  this  kind  but 
assaults  on   the   very    being  of  the  family  ?     Where 


XX.  1-27.]  PENAL  SANCTIONS.  427 

there  is  incest  or  adultery,  we  may  truly  say  the 
family  is  murdered  ;  what  murder  is  to  the  individual, 
that,  precisely,  are  crimes  of  this  class  to  the  family. 
In  the  theocratic  code  these  were,  therefore,  made 
punishable  with  death;  and,  we  venture  to  believe, 
with  abundant  reason.  Is  it  likely  that  God  was  too 
severe  ?  or  must  we  not  rather  fear  that  man,  ever 
lenient  to  prevailing  sins,  in  our  day  has  become 
falsely  and  unmercifully  merciful,  kind  with  a  most 
perilous  and  unholy  kindness  ? 

Still  harder  will  it  be  for  most  of  us  to  under- 
stand why  the  death-penalty  should  have  been  also 
affixed  to  cursing  or  smiting  a  father  or  a  mother,  an 
extreme  form  of  rebellion  against  parental  authority. 
We  must,  no  doubt,  bear  in  mind,  as  in  all  these  cases, 
that  a  rough  people,  like  those  just  emancipated  slaves, 
required  a  severity  of  dealing  which  with  finer  natures 
would  not  be  needed ;  and,  also,  that  the  fact  of 
Israel's  call  to  be  a  priestly  nation  bearing  salvation 
to  mankind,  made  every  disobedience  among  them  the 
graver  crime,  as  tending  to  so  disastrous  issues,  not 
for  Israel  alone,  but  for  the  whole  race  of  man  which 
Israel  was  appointed  to  bless.  On  an  analogous  prin- 
ciple we  justify  military  authority  in  shooting  the 
sentry  found  asleep  at  his  post.  Still,  while  allowing 
for  all  this,  one  can  hardly  escape  the  inference  that,  in 
the  sight  of  God,  rebellion  against  parents  must  be  a 
more  serious  offence  than  many  in  our  time  have  been 
wont  to  imagine.  And  the  more  that  we  consider  how 
truly  basal  to  the  order  of  government  and  of  society 
is  both  sexual  purity  and  the  maintenance  of  a  spirit  of 
reverence  and  subordination  to  parents,  the  easier  we 
shall  find  it  to  recognise  the  fact  that  if  in  this  penal 
code   there  is  doubtless   great  severity,  it  is  yet  the 


428  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

severity  of  governmental  wisdom  and  true  paternal 
kindness  on  the  part  of  the  high  King  of  Israel :  who 
governed  that  nation  with  intent,  above  all,  that  they 
might  become  in  the  highest  sense  '*a  holy  nation" 
in  the  midst  of  an  ungodly  world,  and  so  become  the 
vehicle  of  blessing  to  others.  And  God  thus  judged 
that  it  was  better  that  sinning  individuals  should  die 
without  mercy,  than  that  family  government  and  family 
purity  should  perish,  and  Israel,  instead  of  being  a 
blessing  to  the  nations,  should  sink  with  them  into  the 
mire  of  universal  moral  corruption. 

And  it  is  well  to  observe  that  this  law,  if  severe, 
was  most  equitable  and  impartial  in  its  application. 
We  have  here,  in  no  instance,  torture ;  the  scourging 
which  in  one  case  is  enjoined,  is  limited  elsewhere 
to  the  forty  stripes  save  one.  Neither  have  we  dis- 
crimination against  any  class,  or  either  sex  ;  nothing 
like  that  detestable  injustice  of  modern  society  which 
turns  the  fallen  woman  into  the  street  with  pious  scorn, 
while  it  often  receives  the  betrayer  and  even  the 
adulterer — in  most  cases  the  more  guilty  of  the  two — 
into  "  the  best  society."  Nothing  have  we  here,  again, 
which  could  justify  by  example  the  insistence  of  many, 
through  a  perverted  humanity,  when  a  murderess  is 
sentenced  for  her  crime  to  the  scaffold,  her  sex  should 
purchase  a  partial  immunity  from  the  penalty  of  crime. 
The  Levitical  law  is  as  impartial  as  its  Author ;  even  if 
death  be  the  penalty,  the  guilty  one  must  die,  whether 
man  or  woman. 

Quite  apart,  then,  from  any  question  of  detail,  as  to 
how  far  this  penal  code  ought  to  be  applied  under  the 
different  conditions  of  modern  society,  this  chapter  of 
Leviticus  assuredly  stands  as  a  most  impressive  testi- 
mony from  God  against  the  humanitarianism   of  our 


XX.  1-27.]  PENAL  SANCTIONS.  429 

age.  It  is  more  and  more  the  fashion,  in  some  parts 
of  Christendom,  to  pet  criminals  ;  to  lionize  murderers 
and  adulterers,  especially  if  in  high  social  station. 
We  have  even  heard  of  bouquets  and  such-like  senti- 
mental attentions  bestowed  by  ladies  on  blood-red 
criminals  in  their  cells  awaiting  the  halter;  and  a 
maudlin  pity  quite  too  often  usurps  among  us  the  place 
of  moral  horror  at  crime  and  intense  sympathy  with 
the  holy  justice  and  righteousness  of  God.  But  this 
Divine  government  of  old  did  not  deal  in  flowers  and 
perfumes  ;  it  never  indulged  criminals,  but  punished 
them  with  an  inexorable  righteousness.  And  yet 
this  was  not  because  Israel's  King  was  hard  and  cruel. 
For  it  was  this  same  law  which  with  equal  kindness 
and  equity  kept  a  constant  eye  of  fatherly  care  upon 
the  poor  and  the  stranger,  and  commanded  the  Israel- 
ite that  he  love  even  the  stranger  as  himself.  But, 
none  the  less,  the  Lord  God  who  declared  Himself  as 
merciful  and  gracious  and  of  great  kindness,  also 
herein  revealed  Himself,  according  to  His  word,  as  one 
who  would  **  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty."  This  fact 
is  luminously  witnessed  by  this  penal  code ;  and,  let 
us  note,  it  is  witnessed  by  that  penal  law  of  God 
which  is  revealed  in  nature  also.  For  this  too  punishes 
without  mercy  the  drunkard,  for  example,  or  the  licen- 
tious man,  and  never  diminishes  one  stroke  because 
by  the  full  execution  of  penalty  the  sinner  must  suffer 
often  so  terribly.  Which  is  just  what  we  should 
expect  to  find,  if  indeed  the  God  of  nature  is  the  One 
who  spake  in  Leviticus. 

Finally,  as  already  suggested,  this  chapter  gives  a 
most  weighty  testimony  against  the  modern  tendency 
to  a  relaxation  of  the  laws  which  regulate  the  rela- 
tions of  the  sexes.     That  such  a  tendency  is  a  fact  is 


430  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

admitted  by  all ;  by  some  with  gratulation,  by  others 
with  regret  and  grave  concern.  French  law,  for 
instance,  has  explicitly  legalised  various  alliances 
which  in  this  law  God  explicitly  forbids,  under  heavy 
penal  sanctions,  as  incestuous ;  German  legislation 
has  moved  about  as  far  in  the  same  direction  ;  and 
the  same  tendency  is  to  be  observed,  more  or  less,  in 
all  the  English-speaking  world.  In  some  of  the  United 
States,  especially,  the  utmost  laxity  has  been  reached,  in 
laws  which,  under  the  name  of  divorce,  legalize  gross 
adultery, — laws  which  had  been  a  disgrace  to  pagan 
Rome.  So  it  goes.  Where  God  denounced  the  death- 
penalty,  man  first  apologises  for  the  crime,  then 
lightens  the  penalty,  then  abolishes  it,  and  at  last 
formally  legalises  the  crime.  This  modern  drift  bodes 
no  good  ;  in  the  end  it  can  only  bring  disaster  alike  to 
the  well-being  of  the  family  and  of  the  State.  The 
maintenance  of  the  family  in  its  integrity  and  purity 
is  nothing  less  than  essential  to  the  conservation  of 
society  and  the  stability  of  good  government. 

To  meet  this  growing  evil,  the  Church  needs  to 
come  back  to  the  full  recognition  of  the  principles  which 
underlie  this  Levitical  code  ;  especially  of  the  fact  that 
marriage  and  the  family  are  not  merely  civil  arrange- 
ments, but  Divine  institutions  ;  so  that  God  has  not 
left  it  to  the  caprice  of  a  majority  to  settle  what  shall 
be  lawful  in  these  matters.  Where  God  has  declared 
certain  alliances  and  connections  to  be  criminal,  we 
shall  permit  or  condone  them  at  our  peril.  God  rules, 
whether  modern  majorities  will  it  or  not ;  and  we 
must  adopt  the  moral  standards  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
in  our  legislation,  or  we  shall  suffer.  God  has  declared 
that  not  merely  the  material  well-being  of  man,  but  holi- 
nesSf  is  the  moral  end  of  government  and  of  life ;  and 


XX.  1-27.]  PENAL  SANCTIONS.  431 

He  will  find  ways  to  enforce  His  will  in  this  respect. 
*'  The  nation  that  will  not  serve  Him  shall  perish." 
All  this  is  not  theology,  merely,  or  ethics,  but  history. 
All  history  witnesses  that  moral  corruption  and  relaxed 
legislation,  especially  in  matters  affecting  the  relations 
of  the  sexes,  bring  in  their  train  sure  retribution,  not 
in  Hades,  but  here  on  earth.  Let  us  not  miss  of 
taking  the  lesson  by  imagining  that  this  law  was  for 
Israel,  but  not  for  other  peoples.  The  contrary  is 
affirmed  in  this  very  chapter  (vv.  23,  24),  where  we 
are  reminded  that  God  visited  His  heavy  judgments 
upon  the  Canaanitish  nations  precisely  for  this  very 
thing,  their  doing  of  these  things  which  are  in  this  law 
of  holiness  forbidden.  Hence  **  the  land  spued  them 
out.'*  Our  modern  democracies,  English,  American, 
French,  German,  or  whatever  they  be,  would  do  well 
to  pause  in  their  progressive  repudiation  of  the  law  of 
God  in  many  social  questions,  and  heed  this  solemn 
warning.  For,  despite  the  unbelief  of  multitudes,  the 
Holy  One  still  governs  the  world,  and  it  is  certain 
that  He  will  never  abdicate  His  throne  of  righteousness 
to  submit  any  of  His  laws  to  the  sanction  of  a  popular 
vote. 


CHAPTER    XXIII. 

THE  LAW  OF  PRIESTLY  HOLINESS, 
Lev.  xxi.  i-xxii.  33. 

THE  conception  of  Israel  as  a  kingdom  of  priests, 
a  holy  nation,  was  concretely  represented  in  a 
threefold  division  of  the  people, — the  congregation,  the 
priesthood,  and  the  high  priest.  This  corresponded 
to  the  threefold  division  of  the  tabernacle  into  the 
outer  court,  the  holy  place,  and  the  holy  of  holies, 
each  in  succession  more  sacred  than  the  place  preced- 
ing. So  while  all  Israel  was  called  to  be  a  priestly 
nation,  holy  to  Jehovah  in  life  and  service,  this  sanc- 
tity was  to  be  represented  in  degrees  successively 
higher  in  each  of  these  three  divisions  of  the  people, 
culminating  in  the  person  of  the  high  priest,  who,  in 
token  of  this  fact,  wore  upon  his  forehead  the  inscrip- 
tion, "Holiness  to  Jehovah." 

Up  to  this  point  the  law  of  holiness  has  dealt  only 
with  such  obligations  as  bore  upon  all  the  priestly 
nation  alike ;  in  these  two  chapters  we  now  have  the 
special  requirements  of  this  law  in  its  yet  higher 
demands  upon,  first,  the  priests,  and,  secondly,  the 
high  priest. 

AboHshed  as  to  the  letter,  this  part  of  the  law  still 
holds   good  as   to   the   principle   which   it   expresses, 


xxi.i-xxii.33.]    THE  LAW  OF  PRIESTLY  HOLINESS.     433 

namely,  that  special  spiritual  privilege  and  honour  places 
him  to  whom  it  is  given  under  special  obligations  to 
holiness  of  life.  As  contrasted  with  the  world  without, 
it  is  not  then  enough  that  Christians  should  be  equally 
correct  and  moral  in  life  with  the  best  men  of  the 
world ;  though  too  many  seem  to  be  living  under 
that  impression.  They  must  be  more  than  this ;  they 
must  be  holy  :  God  will  wink  at  things  in  others  which 
He  will  not  deal  lightly  with  in  them.  And  so,  again, 
within  the  Church,  those  who  occupy  various  positions 
of  dignity  as  teachers  and  rulers  of  God's  flock  are 
just  in  that  degree  laid  under  the  more  stringent 
obligation  to  holiness  of  life  and  walk.  This  most 
momentous  lesson  confronts  us  at  the  very  opening 
of  this  new  section  of  the  law,  addressed  specifically 
to  **  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Aaron."  How  much  it  is 
needed  is  sufficiently  and  most  sadly  evident  from  the 
condition  of  baptized  Christendom  to-day.  Who  is 
there  that  will  heed  it  ? 

Priestly  holiness  was  to  be  manifested,  first  (vv. 
I-15),  in  regard  to  earthly  relations  of  kindred  and 
friendship.  This  is  illustrated  under  three  particu- 
lars, namely,  in  mourning  for  the  dead  (vv.  1-6),  in 
marriage  (vv.  7,  8),  and  (ver.  9)  in  the  maintenance 
of  purity  in  the  priest's  family.  With  regard  to  the 
first  point,  it  is  ordered  that  there  shall  be  no  defile- 
ment for  the  dead,  except  in  the  case  of  the  priest's 
own  family, — father,  mother,  brother,  unmarried  sister, 
son,  or  daughter.^  That  is,  with  the  exception  of  these 
cases,  the  priest,  though  he  may  mourn  in  his  heart, 

*  The  wife  is  not  mentioned,  but  that  she  would  also  be  included 
in  the  exception,  in  view  of  her  being  always  regarded  in  the  law  as 
yet  nearer  to  her  husband  than  father  or  mother,  may  be  safely  taken 
for  granted, 

28 


434  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

is  to  take  no  part  in  any  of  those  last  offices  which 
others  render  to  the  dead.  This  were  "to  profane 
himself."  And  while  the  above  exceptions  are  allowed 
in  the  case  of  members  of  his  immediate  household, 
even  in  these  cases  he  is  specially  charged  (ver.  5)  to 
remember,  what  was  indeed  elsewhere  forbidden  to 
every  Israelite,  that  such  excessive  demonstrations  of 
grief  as  shaving  the  head,  cutting  the  flesh,  etc.,  were 
most  unseemly  in  a  priest.  These  restrictions  are 
expressly  based  upon  the  fact  that  he  is  *'  a  chief  man 
among  his  people ; "  that  he  is  holy  unto  God,  ap- 
pointed to  offer  *'  the  bread  of  God,  the  offerings  made 
by  fire."  And  inasmuch  as  the  high  priest,  in  the 
highest  degree  of  all,  represents  the  priestly  idea,  and 
is  thus  admitted  into  a  peculiar  and  exclusive  intimacy 
of  relation  with  God,  having  on  him  "  the  crown  of  the 
anointing  oil  of  his  God,"  and  having  been  consecrated 
to  put  on  the  "  garments  for  glory  and  for  beauty," 
worn  by  none  other  in  Israel,  with  him  the  prohibition 
of  all  public  acts  of  mourning  is  made  absolute  (vv. 
10-12).  He  may  not  defile  himself,  for  instance,  by 
even  entering  the  house  where  lies  the  dead  body  of 
a  father  or  a  mother ! 

These  regulations,  at  first  thought,  to  many  will 
seem  hard  and  unnatural.  Yet  this  law  of  holiness 
elsewhere  magnifies  and  guards  with  most  jealous  care 
the  family  relation,  and  commands  that  even  the  neigh- 
bour we  shall  love  as  ourselves.  Hence  it  is  certain 
that  these  regulations  cannot  have  been  intended  to 
condemn  the  natural  feelings  of  grief  at  the  loss  of 
friends,  but  only  to  place  them  under  certain  restric- 
tions. They  were  given,  not  to  depreciate  the  earthly 
relationships  of  friendship  and  kindred,  but  only  to 
magnify  the  more  the  dignity  and  significance  of  the 


xxi.  i-xxii. 33]    THE  LAW  OF  PRIESTLY  HOLINESS.     435 


priestly  relation  to  God,  as  far  transcending  even  the 
most  sacred  relations  of  earth.  As  priest,  the  son  of 
Aaron  was  the  servant  of  the  Eternal  God,  of  God  the 
Holy  and  the  Living  One,  appointed  to  mediate  from 
Him  the  grace  of  pardon  and  life  to  those  condemned 
to  die.  Hence  he  must  never  forget  this  himself,  nor 
allow  others  to  forget  it.  Hence  he  must  maintain  a 
special,  visible  separation  from  death,  as  everywhere 
the  sign  of  the  presence  and  operation  of  sin  and  un- 
holiness ;  and  while  he  is  not  forbidden  to  mourn, 
he  must  mourn  with  a  visible  moderation ;  the  more 
so  that  if  his  priesthood  had  any  significance,  it  meant 
that  death  for  the  believing  and  obedient  Israelite  was 
death  in  hope.  And  then,  besides  all  this,  God  had 
declared  that  He  Himself  would  be  the  portion  and 
inheritance  of  the  priests.  For  the  priest  therefore  to 
mourn,  as  if  in  losing  even  those  nearest  and  dearest 
on  earth  he  had  lost  all,  were  in  outward  appearance 
to  fail  in  witness  to  the  faithfulness  of  God  to  His 
promises,  and  His  all-sufficiency  as  his  portion. 

Standing  here,  will  we  but  listen,  we  can  now  hear 
the  echo  of  this  same  law  of  priestly  holiness  from  the 
New  Testament,  in  such  words  as  these,  addressed  to 
the  whole  priesthood  of  believers :  "He  that  loveth 
father  or  mother  more  than  Me  is  not  worthy  of  Me ;  " 
"  Let  those  that  have  wives  be  as  though  they  had 
none,  and  those  that  weep  as  though  they  wept  not ; " 
*/ Concerning  them  that  fall  asleep  .  .  .  sorrow  not, 
even  as  the  rest,  which  have  no  hope."  As  Christians, 
we  are  not  forbidden  to  mourn;  but  because  a  royal 
priesthood  to  the  God  of  life,  who  raised  up  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  ourselves  looking  also  for  the  resurrection, 
ever  with  moderation  and  self-restraint.  Extravagant 
demonstrations  of  sorrow,  whether  in  dress  or  in  pro- 


436  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

longed  separation  from  the  sanctuary  and  active  service 
of  God,  as  the  manner  of  many  is,  are  all  as  contrary  to 
the  New  Testament  law  of  holiness  as  to  that  of  the 
Old.  When  bereaved,  we  are  to  call  to  mind  the 
blessed  fact  of  our  priestly  relation  to  God,  and  in  this 
we  shall  find  a  restraint  and  a  remedy  for  excessive 
and  despairing  grief.  We  are  to  remember  that  the 
law  for  the  High  Priest  is  the  law  for  all  His  priestly 
house ;  like  Him,  they  must  all  be  perfected  for  the 
priesthood  by  sufferings  ;  so  that,  in  that  they  them- 
selves suffer,  being  tried,  they  may  be  able  the  better 
to  succour  others  that  are  tried  in  like  manner  (2  Cor. 
i.  4;  Heb.  ii.  18).  We  are  also  to  remember  that  as 
priests  to  God,  this  God  of  eternal  life  and  love  is 
Himself  our  satisfying  portion,  and  with  holy  care 
take  heed  that  by  no  immoderate  display  of  grief  we 
even  seem  before  men  to  traduce  His  faithfulness  and 
belie  to  unbelievers  His  glorious  all-sufficiency. 

The  holiness  of  the  priesthood  was  also  to  be  repre- 
sented visibly  in  the  marriage  relation.  A  priest  must 
marry  no  woman  to  whose  fair  fame  attaches  the  slightest 
possibility  of  suspicion, — no  harlot,  or  fallen  woman,^ 
or  a  woman  divorced  (ver.  7) ;  such  an  alliance  were 
manifestly  most  unseemly  in  one  "  holy  to  his  God." 
As  in  the  former  instance,  the  high  priest  is  still  further 
restricted ;  he  may  not  marry  a  widow,  but  only  '^  a 
virgin  of  his  own  people"  (ver.  14);  for  virginity  is 
always  in  Holy  Scripture  the  peculiar  type  of  holiness. 
As  a  reason  it  is  added  that  this  were  to  ^'  profane  his 
seed  among  his  people ; "  that  is,  it  would  be  inevitable 
that  by  neglect  of  this  care  the  people  would  come  to 
regard  his  seed  with  a  diminished  reverence  as  the 

'  See  margin  (R.  V.). 


xxi.  i-xxii. 33]     THE  LAW  OF  PRIESTLY  HOLINESS.     437 

separated  priests  of  the  holy  God.  From  observing 
the  practice  of  many  who  profess  to  be  Christians,  one 
would  naturally  infer  that  they  can  never  have  suspected 
that  there  was  anything  in  this  part  of  the  law  which 
concerns  the  New  Testament  priesthood  of  believers. 
How  often  we  see  a  young  man  or  a  young  woman 
professing  to  be  a  disciple  of  Christ,  a  member  of  Christ's 
royal  priesthood,  entering  into  marriage  alliance  with 
a  confessed  unbeliever  in  Him  !  And  yet  the  law  is  laid 
down  as  explicitly  in  the  New  Testament  as  in  the  Old 
(i  Cor.  vii.  39^,  that  marriage  shall  be  only  "in  the 
Lord;"  so  that  one  principle  rules  in  both  dispensa- 
tions. The  priestly  line  must,  as  far  as  possible,  be 
kept  pure ;  the  holy  man  must  have  a  holy  wife.  Many, 
indeed,  feel  this  deeply  and  marry  accordingly ;  but  the 
apparent  thoughtlessness  on  the  matter  of  many  more 
is  truly  astonishing,  and  almost  incomprehensible. 

And  the  household  of  the  priest  were  to  remember 
the  holy  standing  of  their  father.  The  sin  of  the  child 
of  a  priest  was  to  be  punished  more  severely  than  that 
of  the  children  of  others ;  a  single  illustration  is  given 
(ver.  9) :  "  The  daughter  of  any  priest,  if  she  profane 
herself  by  playing  the  harlot,  .  .  .  shall  be  burnt  with 
fire."  ^  And  the  severity  of  the  penalty  is  justified  by 
this,  that  by  her  sin  "  she  profaneth  her  father."  From 
which  it  appears  that,  as  a  principle  of  the  Divine 
judgment,  if  the  children  of  believers  sin,  their  guilt 
will  be  judged  more  heavy  than  that  of  others;  and 
that  justly,  because  to  their  sin  this  is  added,  over  like 
sin  of  others,  that  they  thereby  cast  dishonour  on  their 
believing  parents,  and  in  them  soil  and  defame  the 
honour   of  God.     How  little  is  this  remembered  by 

*  That  is,  not  burnt  alive,  but  after  execution. 


438  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

many  in  these  days  of  increasing  insubordination  even 
in  Christian  families  ! 

The  priestly  holiness  was  to  be  manifested,  in  the 
second  place,  in  physical,  bodily  perfection.  It  is  written 
(ver.  17):  "Speak  unto  Aaron,  saying,  Whosoever  he 
be  of  thy  seed  throughout  their  generations  that  hath  a 
blemish,  let  him  not  approach  to  offer  the  bread  of  his 
God." 

And  then  follows  (vv.  18-20)  a  list  of  various  cases 
in  illustration  of  this  law,  with  the  proviso  (w.  21-23) 
that  while  such  a  person  might  not  perform  any  priestly 
function,  he  should  not  be  debarred  from  the  use  of  the 
priestly  portion,  whether  of  things  "holy"  or  '^most 
holy,"  as  his  daily  food.  The  material  and  bodily  is 
ever  the  type  and  symbol  of  the  spiritual ;  hence,  in 
this  case,  the  spiritual  purity  and  perfection  required  of 
him  who  would  draw  near  to  God  in  the  priests'  office 
must  be  visibly  signified  by  his  physical  perfection  ;  else 
the  sanctity  of  the  tabernacle  were  profaned.  More- 
over, the  reverence  due  from  the  people  toward  Jehovah's 
sanctuary  could  not  well  be  maintained  where  a  dwarf, 
for  instance,  or  a  humpback,  were  ministering  at  the 
altar.  And  yet  the  Lord  has  for  such  a  heart  of  kind- 
ness ;  in  kindly  compassion  He  will  not  exclude  them 
from  His  table.  Like  Mephibosheth  at  the  table  of 
David,  the  deformed  priest  may  still  eat  at  the  table 
of  God. 

There  is  a  thought  here  which  bears  on  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  affairs  of  God's  house  even  now.  We  are 
reminded  that  there  are  those  who,  while  undoubtedly 
members  of  the  universal  Christian  priesthood,  and 
thus  lawfully  entitled  to  come  to  the  table  of  the  Lord, 
may  yet  be  properly  regarded  as  disabled  and  debarred 
by  various  circumstances,  for  which,  in  many  cases, 


xxi.  i-xxii. 33-]     THE  LAW  OF  PRIESTLY  HOLINESS.     439 

they  may  not  be  responsible,  from  any  eminent  position 
in  the  Church. 

In  the  almost  unrestrained  insistence  of  many  in  this 
day  for  ^'equality/'  there  are  indications  not  a  few  of  a 
contempt  for  the  holy  offices  ordained  by  Christ  for  His 
Church,  which  would  admit  an  equal  right  on  the  part 
of  almost  any  who  may  desire  it,  to  be  allowed  to 
minister  in  the  Church  in  holy  things.  But  as  there 
were  dwarfed  and  blinded  sons  of  Aaron,  so  are  there 
not  a  few  Christians  who — evidently,  at  least,  to  all  but 
themselves — are  spiritually  dwarfs  or  deformed ;  sub- 
ject to  ineradicable  and  obtrusive  constitutional  infirmi- 
ties, such  as  utterly  disqualify,  and  should  preclude,  them 
from  holding  any  office  in  the  holy  Church  of  Christ. 
The  presence  of  such  in  her  ministry  can  only  now,  as 
of  old,  profane  the  sanctuaries  of  the  Lord. 

The  next  section  of  the  law  of  holiness  for  the 
priests  (xxii.  1-16)  requires  that  the  priests,  as  holy 
unto  Jehovah,  treat  with  most  careful  reverence  all  those 
holy  things  which  are  their  lawful  portion.  If,  in  any 
way,  any  priest  have  incurred  ceremonial  defilement, — 
as,  for  instance,  by  an  issue,  or  by  the  dead, — he  is  not 
to  eat  until  he  is  clean  (vv.  2-7).  On  no  account  must 
he  defile  himself  by  eating  of  that  which  is  unclean, 
such  as  that  which  has  died  of  itself,  or  has  been  torn 
by  beasts  (ver.  8),  which  indeed  was  forbidden  even 
to  the  ordinary  Israelite.  Furthermore,  the  priests  are 
charged  that  they  preserve  the  sanctity  of  God's  house 
by  carefully  excluding  all  from  participation  in  the 
priests'  portion  who  are  not  of  the  priestly  order. 
The  stranger  or  sojourner  in  the  priest's  house,  or  a 
hired  servant,  must  not  be  fed  from  this  ''bread  of 
God ; "  not  even  a  daughter,  when,  having  married, 
she  has  left  the  father's  home  to  form  a  family  of  her 


440  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


own,  can  be  allowed  to  partake  of  it  (ver.  12).  If, 
however  (ver.  13),  she  be  parted  from  her  husband  by 
death  or  divorce,  and  have  no  child,  and  return  to  her 
father's  house,  she  then  becomes  again  a  member  of 
the  priestly  family,  and  resumes  the  privileges  of  her 
virginity. 

All  this  may  seem,  at  first,  remote  from  any  present 
use;  and  yet  it  takes  little  thought  to  see  that,  in 
principle,  the  New  Testament  law  of  holiness  requires, 
under  a  changed  form,  even  the  same  reverent  use  of 
God's  gifts,  and  especially  of  the  Holy  Supper  of  the 
Lord,  from  every  member  of  the  Christian  priesthood. 
It  is  true  that  in  some  parts  of  the  Church  a  supersti- 
tious dread  is  felt  with  regard  to  approach  to  the  Lord's 
Table,  as  if  only  the  conscious  attainment  of  a  very  high 
degree  of  holiness  could  warrant  one  in  coming.  But, 
however  such  a  feeling  is  to  be  deprecated,  it  is  certain 
that  it  is  a  less  serious  wrong,  and  argues  not  so  ill 
as  to  the  spiritual  condition  of  a  man  as  the  easy  care- 
lessness with  which  multitudes  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  nothing  disturbed,  apparently,  by  the  recollec- 
tion that  they  are  living  in  the  habitual  practice  of  known 
sin,  unconfessed,  unforsaken,  and  therefore  unforgiven. 
As  it  was  forbidden  to  the  priest  to  eat  of  those  holy 
things  which  were  his  rightful  portion,  with  his  defile- 
ment or  uncleanness  on  him,  till  he  should  first  be 
cleansed,  no  less  is  it  now  a  violation  of  the  law  oi 
holiness  for  the  Christian  to  come  to  the  Holy  Supper 
having  on  his  conscience  unconfessed  and  unforgiven 
sin.  No  less  truly  than  the  violation  of  this  ancient 
law  is  this  a  profanation,  and  who  so  desecrates  the 
holy  food  must  bear  his  sin. 

And  as  the  sons  of  Aaron  were  charged  by  this  law 
of  holiness  that  they  guard  the  holy  things  from  the 


xxi.  i-xxii. 33]    THE  LAW  OF  PRIESTLY  HOLINESS.     441 

participation  of  any  who  were  not  of  the  priestly  house, 
so  also  is  the  obligation  on  every  member  of  the  New 
Testament  Church,  and  especially  on  those  who  are 
in  official  charge  of  her  holy  sacraments,  that  they  be 
careful  to  debar  from  such  participation  the  unholy 
and  profane.  It  is  true  that  it  is  possible  to  go  to  an 
extreme  m  this  matter  which  is  unwarranted  by  the 
Word  of  God.  Although  participation  in  the  Holy 
Supper  is  of  right  only  for  the  regenerate,  it  does  not 
follow,  as  in  some  sections  of  the  Church  has  been 
imagined,  that  the  Church  is  therefore  required  to 
satisfy  herself  as  to  the  undoubted  regeneration  of 
those  who  may  apply  for  membership  and  fellowship 
in  this  privilege.  So  to  read  the  heart  as  to  be  able 
to  decide  authoritatively  on  the  regeneration  of  every 
applicant  for  Church  membership  is  beyond  the  power 
of  any  but  the  Omniscient  Lord,  and  is  not  required  in 
the  Word.  The  Apostles  received  and  baptized  men 
upon  their  credible  profession  of  faith  and  repentance, 
and  entered  into  no  inquisitorial  cross-examination  as 
to  the  details  of  the  religious  experience  of  the  candidate. 
None  the  less,  however,  the  law  of  holiness  requires 
that  the  Church,  under  this  limitation,  shall  to  the 
uttermost  of  her  power  be  careful  that  no  one  uncon- 
verted and  profane  shall  sit  at  the  Holy  Table  of  the 
Lord.  She  may  admit  upon  profession  of  faith  and 
repentance,  but  she  certainly  is  bound  to  see  to  it  that 
such  profession  shall  be  credible ;  that  is,  such  as  may 
be  reasonably  believed  to  be  sincere  and  genuine.  She 
is  bound,  therefore,  to  satisfy  herself  in  such  cases,  so 
far  as  possible  to  man,  that  the  life  of  the  apphcant, 
at  least  externally,  witnesses  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
profession.  If  we  are  to  beware  of  imposing  false  tests 
of  Christian  character,  as  some  have  done,  for  instance, 


442  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

in  the  use  or  disuse  of  things  indifferent,  we  are,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  see  to  it  that  we  do  apply  such  tests 
as  the  Word  warrants,  and  firmly  exclude  all  such  as 
insist  upon  practices  which  are  demonstrably,  in  them- 
selves always  wrong,  according  to  the  law  of  God. 

No  man  who  has  any  just  apprehension  of  Scriptural 
truth  can  well  doubt  that  we  have  here  a  lesson  which 
is  of  the  highest  present-day  importance.  When  one 
goes  out  into  the  world  and  observes  the  practices  in 
which  many  whom  we  meet  at  the  Lord's  Table  habitu- 
ally indulge,  whether  in  business  or  in  society, — the 
crookedness  in  commercial  dealings  and  sharp  dealing 
in  trade,  the  utter  dissipation  in  amusement,  of  many 
Church  members, — a  spiritual  man  cannot  but  ask. 
Where  is  the  discipline  of  the  Lord's  house  ?  Surely, 
this  law  of  holiness  applies  to  a  multitude  of  such  cases ; 
and  it  must  be  said  that  when  such  eat  of  the  holy 
things,  they  ^'  profane  them ; "  and  those  who,  in 
responsible  charge  of  the  Lord's  Table,  are  careless 
in  this  matter,  "  cause  them  to  bear  the  iniquity  that 
bringeth  guilt,  when  they  eat  their  holy  things  "  (ver. 
1 6).  That  word  of  the  Lord  Jesus  certainly  applies  in 
this  case  (Matt,  xviii.  7)  :  **  It  must  needs  be  that  occa- 
sions of  stumbling  come ;  but  woe  to  that  man  through 
whom  the  occasion  cometh  !  " 

The  last  section  of  the  law  concerning  priestly  holi- 
ness (xxii.  17-33)  requires  the  maintenance  of  jealous 
care  in  the  enforcement  of  the  law  of  offerings.  Inas- 
much as,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  while  it  rested  with 
the  sons  of  Aaron  to  enforce  this  law,  the  obligation 
concerned  every  offerer,  this  section  (vv.  17-25)  is 
addressed  also  (ver.  18)  "unto  all  the  children  of 
Israel."  The  first  requirement  concerned  the  perfection 
of  the   offering;   it   must   be   (vv.    19,   20)    "without 


xxi.  i-xxii. 33.]     THE  LAW  OF  PRIESTLY  HOLINESS.     443 

blemish."  Only  one  qualification  is  allowed  to  this  law, 
namely,  in  the  case  of  the  free-will  offering  (ver.  23), 
in  which  a  victim  was  allowed  which,  otherwise  perfect, 
had  something  *^  superfluous  or  lacking  in  his  parts." 
Even  this  relaxation  of  the  law  was  not  allowed  in  the 
case  of  an  offering  brought  in  payment  of  a  vow ;  hence 
Malachi  (i.  14),  in  allusion  to  this  law,  sharply  denounces 
the  man  who  "  voweth,  and  sacrificeth  unto  the  Lord  a 
blemished  thing."  Verse  25  provides  that  this  law 
shall  be  enforced  in  the  case  of  the  foreigner,  who  may 
wish  to  present  an  offering  to  Jehovah,  no  less  than 
with  the  Israelite. 

A  third  requirement  (ver.  27)  sets  a  minimum  limit 
to  the  age  of  a  sacrificial  victim  ;  it  must  not  be  less 
than  eight  days  old.  The  reason  of  this  law,  apart 
from  any  mystic  or  symbolic  meaning,  is  probably 
grounded  in  considerations  of  humanity,  requiring  the 
avoidance  of  giving  unnecessary  suffering  to  the  dam. 
A  similar  intention  is  probably  to  be  recognised  in  the 
additional  law  (ver.  28)  that  the  cow,  or  ewe,  and  its 
young  should  not  both  be  killed  in  one  day ;  though  it 
must  be  confessed  that  the  matter  is  somewhat  obscure. 

Finally,  the  law  closes  (vv.  29,  30)  with  the  repe- 
tition of  the  command  (vii.  15)  requiring  that  the  flesh  of 
the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving  be  eaten  on  the  same  day 
in  which  it  is  offered.  The  slightest  possibility  of  begin- 
ning corruption  is  to  be  precluded  in  such  cases  with 
peculiar  strictness. 

This  closing  section  of  the  law  of  holiness,  which 
so  insists  that  the  regulations  of  God's  law  in  regard 
to  sacrifice  shall  be  scrupulously  observed,  in  its 
inner  principle  forbids  all  departures  in  matter  of  wor- 
ship from  any  express  Divine  appointment  or  command. 
We  fully  recognise  the  fact  that,  as  compared  with  the 


444  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

old  dispensation,  the  New  Testament  allows  in  the  con- 
duct and  order  of  worship  a  far  larger  liberty  than  then. 
But,  in  our  age,  the  tendency,  alike  in  politics  and  in 
religion,  is  to  the  confounding  of  liberty  and  license. 
Yet  they  are  not  the  same,  but  are  most  sharply 
contrasted.  Liberty  is  freedom  of  action  within  the 
bounds  of  Divine  law ;  license  recognises  no  limitation 
to  human  action,  apart  from  enforced  necessity, — no 
law  save  man's  own  will  and  pleasure.  It  is  therefore 
essential  lawlessness,^  and  therefore  is  sin  in  its  most 
perfect  and  consummate  expression.  But  there  is  law 
in  the  New  Testament  as  well  as  in  the  Old.  Because 
the  New  Testament  lays  down  but  few  laws  concerning 
the  order  ot  Divine  worship,  it  does  not  follow  that 
these  few  are  of  no  consequence,  and  that  men  may 
worship  in  all  respects  just  as  they  choose,  and  equally 
please  God. 

To  illustrate  this  matter.  It  does  not  follow,  because 
the  New  Testament  allows  large  liberty  as  regards  the 
details  of  worship,  that  therefore  we  may  look  upon 
the  use  of  images  or  pictures  in  connection  with  worship 
as  a  matter  of  indifference.  If  told  that  these  are 
merely  used  as  an  aid  to  devotion, — the  very  argument 
which  in  all  ages  has  been  used  by  all  idolaters, — we 
reply  that,  be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  an  aid  which  is 
expressly  prohibited  under  the  heaviest  penal  sanctions 
in  both  Testaments.  We  may  take  another  present-day 
illustration,  which,  especially  in  the  American  Church, 
is  of  special  pertinence.  One  would  say  that  it  should 
be  self-evident  that  no  ordinance  of  the  Church  should 
be  more  jealously  guarded  from  human  alteration  or 

'  See  I  John  iii.  4  and  2  Thess.  ii.  3,  4,  7,  8,— passages  which,  in 
view  of  this  most  manifest  and  characteristic  tendency  of  our  times, 
are  pregnant  with  very  solemn  warning. 


xxi,i-xxii.33.]     THE  LAW  OF  PRIESTLY  HOLINESS.     445 

modification  than  the  most  sacred  institution  of  the 
sacramental  Supper.  Surely  it  should  be  allowed  that 
the  Lord  alone  should  have  the  right  to  designate  the 
symbols  of  His  own  death  in  this  most  holy  ordinance. 
That  He  chose  and  appointed  for  this  purpose  bread 
and  wine,  even  the  fermented  juice  of  the  grape,  has 
been  affirmed  by  the  practically  unanimous  consensus 
of  Christendom  for  almost  nineteen  hundred  years  ; 
and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  this  understanding 
of  the  Scripture  record  is  sustained  by  the  no  less 
unanimous  judgment  of  truly  authoritative  scholarship 
even  to-day.  Neither  can  it  be  denied  that  Christ 
ordained  this  use  of  wine  in  the  Holy  Supper  with 
the  most  perfect  knowledge  of  the  terrible  evils  con- 
nected with  its  abuse  in  all  ages.  All  this  being  so, 
how  can  it  but  contravene  this  principle  of  the  law  of 
holiness,  which  insists  upon  the  exact  observance  of 
the  appointments  which  the  Lord  has  made  for  His  own 
worship,  when  men,  in  the  imagined  interest  of  ^*  moral 
reform,"  presume  to  attempt  improvements  in  this 
holy  ordinance  of  the  Lord,  and  substitute  for  the  wine 
which  He  chose  to  make  the  symbol  of  His  precious 
blood,  something  else,  of  different  properties,  for  the 
use  of  which  the  whole  New  Testament  affords  no 
warrant  ?  We  speak  with  full  knowledge  of  the  various 
plausible  arguments  which  are  pressed  as  reasons  why 
the  Church  should  authorise  this  nineteenth-century 
innovation.  No  doubt,  in  many  cases,  the  change  is 
urged  through  a  misapprehension  as  to  the  historical 
facts,  which,  however  astonishing  to  scholars,  is  at 
least  real  and  sincere.  But  whenever  any,  admitting 
the  facts  as  to  the  original  appointment,  yet  seriously 
propose,  as  so  often  of  late  years,  to  improve  on  the 
Lord's  arrangements  for  His  own  Table,  we  are  bold 


446  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

to  insist  that  the  principle  which  underlies  this  part 
of  the  priestly  law  of  holiness  applies  in  full  force  in 
this  case,  and  cannot  therefore  be  rightly  set  aside. 
Strange,  indeed,  it  is  that  men  should  unthinkingly 
hope  to  advance  morality  by  ignoring  the  primal  prin- 
ciple of  all  holiness,  that  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is 
absolute  and  supreme  Lord  over  all  His  people,  and 
especially  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  ordering  of  His 
own  house  ! 

We  have  in  these  days  great  need  to  beseech  the 
Lord  that  He  may  deliver  us,  in  all  things,  from  that 
malign  epidemic  of  religious  lawlessness  which  is  one 
of  the  plagues  of  our  age ;  and  raise  up  a  generation 
who  shall  so  understand  their  priestly  calling  as  Chris- 
tians, that,  no  less  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  offices 
of  public  worship,  than  in  their  lives  as  individuals 
they  shall  take  heed,  above  all  things,  to  walk  accord- 
ing to  the  principles  of  this  law  of  priestly  holiness. 
For,  repealed  although  it  be  as  to  the  outward  form 
of  the  letter,  yet  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  as  to  its 
spirit  and  intention,  it  abides,  and  must  abide,  in  force 
unto  the  end.  And  the  great  argument  also,  with 
which,  after  the  constant  manner  of  this  law,  this  section 
closes,  is  also,  as  to  its  spirit,  valid  still,  and  even  of 
greater  force  in  its  New  Testament  form  than  of  old. 
For  we  may  now  justly  read  it  in  this  wise :  "  Ye 
shall  not  profane  My  holy  name,  but  I  will  be  hallowed 
among  My  people :  I  am  the  Lord  that  hallow  you, 
that  have  redeemed  you  by  the  cross,  to  be  your  God." 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE  SEl   FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD. 
Lev.  xxiii.  1-44. 

IT  is  even  an  instinct  of  natural  religion  to  observe 
certain  set  times  for  special  public  and  united 
worship.  As  we  should  therefore  anticipate,  such 
observances  are  in  this  chapter  enjoined  as  a  part  of 
the  requirement  of  the  law  of  holiness  for  Israel. 

It  is  of  consequence  to  observe  that  the  Revisers  have 
corrected  the  error  of  the  Authorised  Version,  which 
renders  two  perfectly  distinct  words  alike  as  *' feasts;" 
and  have  distinguished  the  one  by  the  translation,  "  set 
feasts,"  the  other  by  the  one  word,  "  feasts."  The 
precise  sense  of  the  former  word  is  given  in  the  margin 
"  appointed  seasons,"  and  it  is  naturally  applied  to  all 
the  set  times  of  special  religious  solemnity  which  are 
ordained  in  this  chapter.  But  the  other  word  trans- 
lated *'  feast," — derived  from  a  root  meaning  "  to  dance," 
whence  "  feast  "  or  "  festival," — is  applied  to  only 
three  of  the  former  six  *'  appointed  seasons,"  namely, 
the  feasts  of  Unleavened  Bread,  of  Pentecost,  and  of 
Tabernacles;  as  intended  to  be,  in  a  special  degree, 
seasons  of  gladness  and  festivity. 

The  indication  of  this  distinction  is  of  importance, 
as  completely  meeting  the  allegation  that  there  is  in 
this  chapter  evidence  of  a  later  development  than  in  the 


448  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

account  of  the  feasts  given  in  Exod.  xxxiv.,  where  the 
number  of  the  "feasts/'  besides  the  weekly  Sabbath, 
is  given  as  three,  while  here,  as  it  is  asserted,  their 
number  has  been  increased  to  six.  In  reality,  how- 
ever, there  is  nothing  here  which  suggests  a  later 
period.  For  the  object  of  the  former  law  in  Exodus 
was  only  to  name  the  ''feasts"  {haggini);  while  that 
of  the  chapter  before  us  is  to  indicate  not  only  these, — 
which  here,  as  there,  are  three, — but,  in  addition  to 
these,  all  ''  appointed  seasons  "  for  "  holy  convocations/ 
which,  although  all  mdadim,  were  not  all  haggim. 

The  observance  of  public  religious  festivals  has  been 
common  to  all  the  chief  religions  of  the  world,  both 
ancient  and  modern.  Very  often,  though  not  in  all 
cases,  these  have  been  determined  by  the  phases  of 
the  moon ;  or  by  the  apparent  motion  of  the  sun  in 
the  heavens,  as  in  many  instances  of  religious  celebra- 
tions connected  with  the  period  of  the  spring  and 
autumnal  equinoxes;  and  thus,  very  naturally,  also 
with  the  times  of  harvest  and  ingathering.  It  is  at 
once  evident  that  of  these  appointed  seasons  of  holy 
convocation,  the  three  feasts  Qiaggim)  of  the  Hebrews 
also  fell  at  certain  points  in  the  harvest  season ;  and 
with  each  of  these,  ceremonies  were  observed  connected 
with  harvest  and  ingathering;  while  two,  the  feast  of 
weeks  and  that  of  tabernacles,  take  alternate  names, 
directly  referring  to  this  their  connection  with  the 
harvest ;  namely,  the  feast  of  firstfruits  and  that  of 
ingathering.  Thus  we  have,  first,  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread,  following  passover,  which  was  distinguished  by 
the  presentation  of  a  sheaf  of  the  firstfruits  of  the 
barley  harvest,  in  the  latter  part  of  March,  or  early  in 
April;  then,  the  feast  of  weeks,  or  firstfruits,  seven 
weeks  later,  marking  the  completion  of  the  grain  harvest 


xxiii.  1-44.]    THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  449 

with  the  ingathering  of  the  wheat ;  and,  finally,  the 
feast  of  tabernacles  or  ingathering,  in  the  seventh  month, 
marking  the  harvesting  of  the  fruits,  especially  the  oil 
and  the  wine,  and  therewith  the  completed  ingathering 
of  the  whole  product  of  the  year. 

From  these  facts  it  is  argued  that  in  these  Hebrew 
feasts  we  have  simply  a  natural  development,  with 
modifications,  of  the  ancient  and  widespread  system 
of  harvest  feasts  among  the  heathen ;  to  which  the 
historical  element  which  appears  in  some  of  them  was 
only  added  as  an  afterthought,  in  a  later  period  of 
history.  From  this  point  of  view,  the  idea  that  these 
feasts  were  a  matter  of  supernatural  revelation  dis- 
appears ;  what  religious  character  they  have  belongs 
originally  to  the  universal  religion  of  nature. 

But  it  is  to  be  remarked,  first,  that  even  if  we  admit 
that  in  their  original  character  these  were  simply  and 
only  harvest  feasts,  it  would  not  follow  that  therefore 
their  observance,  with  certain  prescribed  ceremonies, 
could  not  have  been  matter  of  Divine  revelation. 
There  is  a  religion  of  nature ;  God  has  not  left  Himself 
without  a  witness,  in  that  He  has  given  men  "  rains 
and  fruitful  seasons,"  filling  their  hearts  with  food  and 
gladness.  And,  as  already  remarked  in  regard  to 
sacrifice,  it  is  no  part  of  the  method  of  God  in  revelation 
to  ignore  or  reject  what  in  this  religion  of  nature  may 
be  true  and  right ;  but  rather  to  use  it,  and  build  on 
this  foundation. 

But,  again,  the  mere  fact  that  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  fell  at  the  beginning  of  barley  harvest,  and  that 
one — though  only  one — ceremony  appointed  for  that 
festive  week  had  explicit  reference  to  the  then  begin- 
ning harvest,  is  not  sufficient  to  disprove  the  uniform 
declaration  of  Scripture  that,  as  observed  in  Israel,  its 

29 


450  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

original  ground  was  not  natural,  but  historical;  namely, 
in  the  circumstances  attending  the  birth  of  the  nation 
in  their  exodus  from  Egypt. 

But  we  may  say  more  than  this.  If  the  contrary 
were  true,  and  the  introduction  of  the  historical  element 
was  an  afterthought,  as  insisted  by  some,  then  we 
should  expect  to  find  that  in  accounts  belonging  to 
successive  periods,  the  reference  to  the  harvest  would 
certainly  be  more  prominent  in  the  earlier,  and  the 
reference  of  the  feast  to  a  historical  origin  more  promi- 
nent in  the  later,  accounts  of  the  feasts.  Most  singular 
it  is  then,  upon  this  hypothesis,  to  find  that  even 
accepting  the  analysis,  e.g.^  of  Wellhausen,  the  facts 
are  the  exact  reverse.  For  the  only  brief  reference  to 
the  harvest  in  connection  with  this  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  is  found  in  this  chap,  xxiii.  of  Leviticus,  com- 
posed, it  is  alleged,  about  the  time  of  Ezekiel;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  narrative  in  Exod.  xii.,  regarded 
by  all  the  critics  of  this  school  as  the  earliest  account 
of  the  origin  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  refers 
only  to  the  historical  event  of  the  exodus,  as  the  occasion 
of  its  institution.  If  we  grant  the  asserted  difference 
in  age  of  these  two  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  one  would 
thus  more  naturally  conclude  that  the  historical  events 
were  the  original  occasion  of  the  institution  of  the 
festival,  and  that  the  reference  to  the  harvest,  in  the 
presentation  of  the  sheaf  of  firstfruits,  was  the  later 
introduction  into  the  ceremonies  of  the  week. 

But  the  truth  is  that  this  naturalistic  identification  of 
these  Hebrew  feasts  with  the  harvest  feasts  of  other 
nations  is  a  mistake.  In  order  to  make  it  out,  it  is 
necessary  to  ignore  or  pervert  most  patent  facts. 
These  so-called  harvest  feasts  in  fact  form  part  of  an 
elaborate  system  of  sacred  times, — a  system  which  is 


xxiii.  1-44.]     THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  45' 

based  upon  the  Sabbath,  and  into  which  the  sacred 
number  seven,  the  number  of  the  covenant,  enters 
throughout  as  a  formative  element.  The  weekly 
Sabbath,  first  of  all,  was  the  seventh  day ;  the  length 
of  the  great  festivals  of  unleavened  bread  and  of  taber- 
nacles was  also,  in  each  case,  seven  days.  Not  only 
so,  but  the  entire  series  of  sacred  times  mentioned  in 
this  chapter  and  in  chap.  xxv.  constitutes  an  ascend- 
ing series  of  sacred  septenaries,  in  which  the  ruling 
thought  is  this  :  that  the  seventh  is  holy  unto  the  Lord, 
as  the  number  symbolic  of  rest  and  redemption  ;  and 
that  the  eighth,  as  the  first  of  a  new  week,  is  symbohc 
of  the  new  creation.  Thus  we  have  the  seventh  day, 
the  weekly  Sabbath,  constantly  recurring,  the  type  of 
each  of  the  series ;  then,  counting  from  the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread, — the  first  of  the  sacred  year, — the 
fiftieth  day,  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  week,  is  sig- 
nalised as  sacred  by  the  feast  of  firstfruits  or  of 
"  weeks ; "  the  seventh  month,  again,  is  the  sabbatic 
month,  of  special  sanctity,  containing  as  it  does  three  of 
the  annual  seasons  of  holy  convocation, — the  feast  of 
trumpets  on  its  first  day,  the  great  day  of  atonement 
on  the  tenth,  and  the  last  of  the  three  great  annual 
feasts,  that  of  tabernacles  or  ingathering,  for  seven 
days  from  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month.  Beyond  this 
series  of  sacred  festivals  recurring  annually,  in  chap. 
XXV.,  the  seventh  year  is  appointed  to  be  a  sabbatic 
year  of  rest  to  the  land,  and  the  series  at  last  culmi- 
nates at  the  expiration  of  seven  sevens  of  years,  in  the 
fiftieth  year, — the  eighth  following  the  seventh  seven, — 
the  great  year  of  jubilee,  the  supreme  year  of  rest, 
restoration,  and  release.  All  these  sacred  times, 
differing  in  the  details  of  their  observance,  are  alike 
distinguished    by   their    connection   with    the    sacred 


452  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

number  seven,  by  the  informing  presence  of  the  idea 
of  the  Sabbath,  and  therewith  always  a  new  and 
fuller  revelation  of  God  as  in  covenant  with  Israel  for 
their  redemption. 

Now,  like  to  this  series  of  sacred  times,  in  heathenism 
there  is  absolutely  nothing.  It  evidently  belongs  to 
another  realm  of  thought,  ethics,  and  religion.  And 
so,  while  it  is  quite  true  that  in  the  three  great  leasts 
there  was  a  reference  to  the  harvest,  and  so  to  fruitful 
nature,  yet  the  fundamental,  unifying  idea  of  the 
system  ot  sacred  times  was  not  the  recognition  of  the 
fruitful  life  of  nature,  as  in  the  heathen  festivals,  but  of 
Jehovah,  as  the  Author  and  Sustainer  of  the  life  of  His 
covenant  people  Israel,  as  also  of  every  individual  in 
the  nation.  This,  we  repeat,  is  the  one  central  thought 
in  all  these  sacred  seasons ;  not  the  life  of  nature,  but 
the  life  of  the  holy  nation,  as  created  and  sustained  by 
a  covenant  God.  The  annual  processes  of  nature  have 
indeed  a  place  and  a  necessary  recognition  in  the 
system,  simply  because  the  personal  God  is  active  in 
all  nature ;  but  the  place  of  these  is  not  primary,  but 
secondary  and  subordinate.  They  have  a  recognition 
because,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  through  the  bounty  of 
God  in  nature  that  the  life  of  man  is  sustained  ;  and, 
secondly,  also  because  nature  in  her  order  is  a  type 
and  shadow  of  things  spiritual.  For  in  the  spiritual 
world,  whether  we  think  of  it  as  made  up  of  nations 
or  individuals,  even  as  in  the  natural,  there  is  a  seed- 
time and  a  harvest,  a  time  of  firstfruits  and  a  time 
of  the  joy  and  rest  of  the  full  ingathering  of  fruit,  and 
oil,  and  wine.  Hence  it  was  most  fitting  that  this 
inspired  rubric,  as  primarily  intended  for  the  celebra- 
tion of  spiritual  things,  should  be  so  arranged  and 
timed,  in  all  its  parts,  as  that  in  each  returning  sacred 


xxiii.  1-44.]     THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  453 

season;  visible  nature  should  present  itself  to  Israel  as 
a  manifest  parable  and  eloquent  suggestion  of  those 
spiritual  verities ;  the  more  so  that  thus  the  Israelite 
would  be  reminded  that  the  God  of  the  Exodus  and  the 
God  of  Sinai  was  also  the  supreme  Lord  of  nature,  the 
God  of  the  seed-time  and  harvest,  the  Creator  and 
Sustainer  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  of  all  that 
in  them  is. 

The  Weekly  Sabbath. 

xxiii.  1-3. 

"And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them.  The  set  feasts  of  the  Lord,  which  ye 
shall  proclaim  to  be  holy  convocations,  even  these  are  My  set  feasts. 
Six  days  shall  work  be  done  :  but  on  the  seventh  day  is  a  sabbath  of 
solemn  rest,  an  holy  convocation ;  ye  shall  do  no  manner  of  work  :  it 
is  a  sabbath  unto  the  Lord  in  all  your  dwellings." 

The  first  verse  of  this  chapter  announces  the  pur- 
pose of  the  section  as,  not  to  give  a  complete  calendar 
of  sacred  times  or  of  seasons  of  worship, — for  the  new 
moons  and  the  sabbatic  year  and  the  jubilee  are  not 
mentioned, — but  to  enumerate  such  sacred  times  as  are 
to  be  kept  as  **  holy  convocations."  The  reference  in 
this  phrase  cannot  be  to  an  assembling  of  the  people 
at  the  central  sanctuary,  which  is  elsewhere  ordered 
(Exod.  xxxiv.  23)  only  for  the  three  feasts  of  passover, 
weeks,  and  atonement ;  but  rather,  doubtless,  to  local 
gatherings  for  purposes  of  worship,  such  as,  at  a  later 
day,  took  form  in  the  institution  of  the  synagogues. 

The  enumeration  of  these  '^  set  times  "  begins  with 
the  Sabbath  (ver.  3),  as  was  natural ;  for,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  whole  series  of  sacred  times  was  sabbatic  in 
character.  The  sanctity  of  the  day  is  emphasised  in 
the  strongest  terms,  as  a  shabbath  shabbathon^  a  "sabbath 


454  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

of  sabbatism," — a  *' sabbath  of  solemn  rest,"  as  it  is 
rendered  by  the  Revisers.  While  on  some  other 
sacred  seasons  the  usual  occupations  of  the  household 
were  permitted,  on  the  Sabbath  "  no  manner  of  work  " 
was  to  be  done  ;  not  even  was  it  lawful  to  gather  wood 
or  to  light  a  fire. 

For   this   sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  two  reasons  are 
elsewhere  given.     The  first  of  these,  which  is  assigned 
in  the  fourth  commandment,  makes  it  a  memorial  of 
the  rest  of  God,  when  having  created  man  in  Eden,  He 
saw  His  work  which  He  had  finished,  that  it  was  very 
good,  and  rested  from  all  His  work.     As  created,  man 
was  participant  in  this  rest  of  God.     He  was  indeed  to 
work  in  tilling  the  garden  in  which  he  had  been  placed ; 
but  from  such  labour  as  involves  unremunerative  toil 
and  exhaustion  he  was  exempt.     But  this  sabbatic  rest 
of  the  creation   was  interrupted  by  sin ;  God's  work, 
which  He  had  declared  **  good,"  was  marred ;  man  fell 
into  a  condition  of  wearying  toil  and  unrest  of  body 
and  soul,  and  with   him  the  whole  creation  also  was 
*' subjected  to  vanity"  (Gen.  iii.  17,  18  ;  Rom.  viii.  20). 
But  in  this  state  of  things  the  God  of  love  could  not 
rest ;  it  thus  involved  for  Him  a  work  of  new  creation, 
which  should  have  for  its  object  the  complete  restora- 
tion, both  as  regards  man  and  nature,  of  that  sabbatic 
state  of  things  on  earth  which  had  been  broken  up  by 
sin.     And  thus  it  came  to  pass  that  the  weekly  Sabbath 
looked  not  only  backward,  but  forward ;  and  spoke  not 
only  of  the  rest  that  was,  but  of  the  great  sabbatism  of 
the  future,  to  be  brought  in  through  a  promised  redemp- 
tion.    Hence,  as  a  second  reason  for  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath,  it  is  said  (Exod.  xxxi.  13)  to  be  a  sign 
between  God  and  Israel  through  all  their  generations, 
that   they  might   know   that  He  was   Jehovah  which 


xxiii.  1-44.]    THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  455 

sanctified  them,  t'.e.,  who  had  set  them  apart  for  deHver- 
ance  from  the  curse,  that  through  them  the  world  might 
be  saved. 

These  are  thus  the  two  sabbatic  ideas;  rest  and 
redemption.  They  everywhere  appear,  in  one  form 
or  another,  in  all  this  sabbatic  series  of  sacred  times. 
Some  of  them  emphasise  one  phase  of  the  rest  and 
redemption,  and  some  another;  the  weekly  Sabbath, 
as  the  unit  of  the  series,  presents  both.  For  in 
Deuteronomy  (v.  15)  Israel  was  commanded  to  keep 
the  Sabbath  in  commemoration  of  the  exodus,  as  the 
time  when  God  undertook  to  bring  them  into  His  rest ; 
a  rest  of  which  the  beginning  and  the  pledge  was  their 
deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage ;  a  rest  brought  in 
through  a  redemption.^ 

The  Feast  of  Passover  and  Unleavened  Bread. 

xxiii.  4-14. 

"These  are  the  set  feasts  of  the  Lord,  even  holy  convocations, 
which  ye  shall  proclaim  in  their  appointed  season.  In  the  first  month, 
on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  at  even,  is  the  Lord's  passover. 
And  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  same  month  is  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  unto  the  Lord  :  seven  days  ye  shall  eat  unleavened  bread.  In 
the  first  day  ye  shall  have  an  holy  convocation  :  ye  shall  do  no  servile 
work.  But  ye  shall  offer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord 
seven  days  :  in  the  seventh  day  is  an  holy  convocation  ;  ye  shall  do 
no  servile  work.  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak 
unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them.  When  ye  be  come  into 
the  land  which  I  give  unto  you,  and  shall  reap  the  harvest  thereof, 
then  ye  shall  bring  the  sheaf  of  the  firstfruits  of  your  harvest  unto 
the  priest  :  and  he  shall  wave  the  sheaf  before  the  Lord,  to  be  accepted 
for  you  :  on  the  morrow  after  the  sabbath  the  priest  shall  wave  it. 
And  in  the  day  when  ye  wave  the  sheaf,  ye  shall  offer  a  he-lamb 
without  blemish  of  the  first  year  for  a  burnt  offering  unto  the  Lord. 
And  the  meal  offering  thereof  shall  be  two  tenth  parts  of  an  ephah  of 
fine  flour  mingled  with  oil,  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  for 

*  See  the  inspired  comment  in  Heb.  iv. 


456  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

a  sweet  savour  :  and  the  drink  offering  thereof  shall  be  of  wine,  the 
fourth  part  of  an  hin.  And  ye  shall  eat  neither  bread,  nor  parched 
corn,  nor  fresh  ears,  until  this  selfsame  day,  until  ye  have  brought  the 
oblation  of  your  God  :  it  is  a  statute  for  ever  throughout  your  genera- 
tions in  all  your  dwellings." 

Verses  5-8  give  the  law  for  the  first  of  the  annual 
feasts,  the  passover  and  unleavened  bread.  The  pass- 
over  lamb  was  to  be  slain  and  eaten  on  the  evening 
of  the  fourteenth  day ;  and  thereafter,  for  seven  days, 
they  were  all  to  eat  unleavened  bread.  The  first  and 
seventh  days  of  unleavened  bread  were  to  be  kept  as 
an  "  holy  convocation ; "  in  both  of  which  "  servile 
work,"  i.e.y  the  usual  occupations  in  the  field  or  in 
one's  handicraft,  were  forbidden.  Further  than  this 
the  restriction  did  not  extend. 

The  utter  impossibility  of  making  this  feast  of  pass- 
over  also  to  have  been  at  first  merely  a  harvest  lestival 
is  best  shown  by  the  signal  failure  of  the  many  attempts 
to  explain  on  this  theory  the  name  "  passover "  as 
applied  to  the  sacrificial  victim,  and  the  exclusion  of 
leaven  for  the  whole  period.  Admit  the  statements  of 
the  Pentateuch  on  this  subject,  and  all  is  simple.  The 
feast  was  a  most  suitable  commemoration  by  Israel 
of  the  solemn  circumstances  under  which  they  began 
their  national  life  :  their  exemption  from  the  plague 
of  the  death  of  the  first-born,  through  the  blood  of  a 
slain  victim ;  and  their  exodus  thereafter  in  such  haste 
that  they  stopped  not  to  leaven  their  bread. 

And  there  was  a  deeper  spiritual  meaning  than  this. 
Whereas,  secured  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  they  then 
fed  in  safety  on  the  flesh  of  the  victim,  by  which  they 
received  strength  for  their  flight  from  Egypt,  the  same 
two  thoughts  were  thereby  naturally  suggested  which 
we  have  seen  represented  in  the  peace-offering ;  namely, 


xxiii.  1-44.1     THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  457 

friendship  and  fellowship  with  God  secured  through 
sacrifice,  and  life  sustained  by  His  bounty.  And  the  un- 
leavened bread,  also,  had  more  than  a  historic  reference ; 
else  it  had  sufficed  to  eat  it  only  on  the  anniversary 
night,  and  it  had  not  been  commanded  also  to  put 
away  the  leaven  from  their  houses.  For  leaven  is  the 
established  symbol  of  moral  corruption ;  and  in  that, 
the  passover  lamb  having  been  slain,  Israel  must 
abstain  for  a  full  septenary  period  of  a  week  from 
every  use  of  leaven,  it  was  signified  in  symbol  that 
the  redeemed  nation  must  not  live  by  means  of  what 
is  evil,  but  be  a  holy  people,  according  to  their  calling. 
And  the  inseparable  connection  of  this  with  full  con- 
secration of  person  and  service,  and  with  the  expiation 
of  sin,  was  daily  symbolised  (ver.  8)  by  the  '^  offerings 
made  by  fire,"  burnt-offerings,  meal-oiferings,  and  sin- 
offerings,  "  offerings  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord." 

On  "the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath"  (ver.  15)  of 
this  sacred  week,  it  was  ordered  (ver.  10)  that  "  the 
sheaf  of  the  firstfruits  of  the  (barley)  harvest "  should 
be  brought  "unto  the  priest;"  and  (ver.  ii)  that  he 
should  consecrate  it  unto  the  Lord,  by  the  ceremony 
of  waving  it  before  Him.  This  wave-offering  of  the 
sheaf  of  firstfruits  was  to  be  accompanied  (vv.  12,  13) 
by  a  burnt-offering,  a  meal-offering,  and  a  drink- 
offering  of  wine.  Until  all  this  was  done  (ver.  14) 
they  were  to  "  eat  neither  bread,  nor  parched  corn,  nor 
fresh  ears"  of  the  new  harvest.  By  the  consecration 
of  the  firstfruit  is  ever  signified  the  consecration  of  the 
whole,  of  which  it  is  the  first  part,  unto  the  Lord.  By 
this  act,  Israel,  at  the  very  beginning  of  their  harvest, 
solemnly  consecrated  the  whole  harvest  to  the  Lord ; 
and  are  only  permitted  to  use  it,  when  they  receive  it 
thus  as  a  gift  from  Him.     This  ethical  reference  to  the 


458  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


harvest  is  here  expressly  taught;  but  still  more  was 
thereby  taught  in  symbol. 

For  Israel  was  declared  (Exod.  iv.  22)  to  be  God's 
first-born  ;  that  is,  in  the  great  redemptive  plan  of  God, 
which  looks  forward  to  the  final  salvation  of  all  nations, 
Israel  ever  comes  historically  first.  ^*  The  Jew  first, 
and  also  the  Greek,"  is  the  New  Testament  formula 
of  this  fundamental  dispensational  truth.  The  offering 
unto  God,  therefore,  of  the  sheaf  of  firstfruits,  at  the 
very  beginning  of  the  harvest, — in  fullest  harmony 
with  the  historic  reference  of  this  feast,  which  com- 
memorated Israel's  deliverance  from  bondage  and 
separation  from  the  nations,  as  a  firstfruits  of  redemp- 
tion,— symbolically  signified  the  consecration  of  Israel 
unto  God  as  the  first-born  unto  Him  from  the  nations, 
the  beginning  of  the  world's  great  harvest. 

But  this  is  not  all.  For  in  these  various  ceremonies 
ot  this  first  of  the  feasts,  all  who  acknowledge  the 
authority  of  the  New  Testament  will  recognise  a 
yet  more  profound,  and  prophetic,  spiritual  meaning. 
Passover  and  unleavened  bread  not  only  looked  back- 
ward, but  forward.  For  the  Apostle  Paul  writes,  ad- 
dressing all  believers  ( I  Cor.  v.  7,  8):  ''Purge  out  the 
old  leaven,  that  ye  may  be  a  new  lump,  even  as  ye  are 
unleavened.  For  our  passover  also  hath  been  sacrificed, 
even  Christ :  wherefore  let  us  keep  the  feast,  not  with 
old  leaven,  neither  with  the  leaven  of  malice  and 
wickedness,  but  with  the  unleavened  bread  of  sincerity 
and  truth ; " — an  exposition  so  plain  that  comment  is 
scarcely  needed.  And  as  following  upon  the  passover, 
on  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath,  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  the  sheaf  of  firstfruits  was  presented  before 
Jehovah,  so  in  type  is  brought  before  us  that  of  which 
the  same  Apostle  tells  us  (i  Cor.  xv.  20),  that  Christ, 


xxiii.  1-44.]     THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  459 

in  that  He  rose  from  the  dead  on  the  first  day  after 
the  Sabbath,  became  *'  the  firstfruits  of  them  that  are 
asleep;"  thus,  for  the  first  time,  finally  and  exhaustively 
fulfilling  this  type,  in  full  accord  also  with  His  own 
representation  of  Himself  (John  xii.  24)  as  "a  grain 
of  wheat,"  which  should  '*  fall  into  the  earth  and  die," 
and  then,  living  again,  "  bear  much  fruit." 

The  Feast  of  Pentecost. 

xxiii.  15-21. 

"  And  ye  shall  count  unto  you  from  the  morrow  after  the  sabbath, 
from  the  day  that  ye  brought  the  sheaf  of  the  wave  offering ;  seven 
sabbaths  shall  there  be  complete :  even  unto  the  morrow  after  the 
seventh  sabbath  shall  ye  number  fifty  days ;  and  ye  shall  offer  a  new 
meal  offering  unto  the  Lord.  Ye  shall  bring  out  of  your  habitations 
two  wave  loaves  of  two  tenth  parts  of  an  ephah  :  they  shall  be  of  fine 
flour,  they  shall  be  aken  with  leaven,  for  firstfruits  unto  the  Lord. 
And  ye  shall  present  with  the  bread  seven  lambs  without  blemish  of 
the  first  year,  and  one  young  bullock,  and  two  rams  :  they  shall  be 
a  burnt  offering  unto  the  Lord,  with  their  meal  offering,  and  their 
drink  offerings,  even  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet  savour  unto 
the  Lord.  And  ye  shall  offer  one  he-goat  for  a  sin  offering,  and  two 
he-Iambs  of  the  first  year  for  a  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings.  And  the 
priest  shall  wave  them  with  the  bread  of  the  firstfruits  for  a  wave 
offering  before  the  Lord,  with  the  two  lambs:  they  shall  be  holy 
to  the  Lord  for  the  priest.  And  ye  shall  make  proclamation  on  the 
selfsame  day  ;  there  shall  be  an  holy  convocation  unto  you  :  ye  shall 
do  no  servile  work  :  it  is  a  statute  for  ever  in  all  your  dwellings 
throughout  your  generations." 

Next  in  order  came  the  feast  of  firstfruits,  or  the 
feast  of  weeks,  which,  because  celebrated  on  the 
fiftieth  day  after  the  presentation  of  the  wave-sheaf 
in  passover  week,  has  come  to  be  known  as  Pente- 
cost, from  the  Greek  numeral  signifying  fifty.  It 
was  ordered  that  the  fiftieth  day  after  this  pre- 
sentation of  the  first  sheaf  of  the  harvest  should  be 
kept  as  a  day  of  "  holy  convocation,"  with  abstinence 


46o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

from  all  *' servile  work."  The  former  festival  had 
marked  the  absolute  beginning  of  the  harvest  with  the 
first  sheaf  of  barley ;  this  marked  the  completion  of 
the  grain  harvest  with  the  reaping  of  the  wheat.  In 
the  former,  the  sheaf  was  presented  as  it  came  from 
the  field ;  in  this  case,  the  offering  was  of  the  grain  as 
prepared  for  food.  It  was  ordered  (ver.  i6)  that  on 
this  day  **a  new  meal  offering"  should  be  offered. 
It  should  be  brought  out  of  their  habitations  and  be 
baken  with  leaven.  In  both  particulars,  it  was  unlike 
the  ordinary  meal-offerings,  because  the  offering  was 
to  represent  the  ordinary  food  of  the  people.  Accom- 
panied with  a  sevenfold  burnt-offering,  and  a  sin- 
offering,  and  two  lambs  of  peace-offerings,  these  were  to 
be  waved  before  the  Lord  for  their  acceptance,  after  the 
manner  of  the  wave-sheaf  (vv.  18-20).  On  the  altar  they 
could  not  come,  because  they  were  baken  with  leaven. 

This  festival,  as  one  of  the  sabbatic  series,  celebrated 
the  rest  after  the  labours  of  the  grain  harvest,  a  symbol 
of  the  great  sabbatism  to  follow  that  harvest  which  is 
'^  the  end  of  the  age  "  (Matt.  xiii.  39).  As  a  consecra- 
tion, it  dedicated  unto  God  the  daily  food  of  the  nation 
for  the  coming  3^ear.  As  passover  reminded  them  that 
God  was  the  Creator  of  Israel,  so  herein,  receiving 
their  daily  bread  from  Him,  they  were  reminded  that 
He  was  also  the  Sustainer  of  Israel ;  while  the  full 
accompaniment  of  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings 
expressed  their  full  consecration  and  happy  state  of 
friendship  with  Jehovah,  secured  through  the  expiation 
of  the  sin-offering. 

Was  this  feast  also,  like  passover,  prophetic  ?  The 
New  Testament  is  scarcely  less  clear  than  in  the  former 
case.  For  after  that  Christ,  first  having  been  slain  as 
*'  our  Passover,"  had  then  risen  from  the  dead  as  the 


xxiii.  1-44.]     THE  SET  FEASTS   OF  THE  LORD.  461 

"  Firstfruits,"  fulfilling  the  type  of  the  wave-sheaf  on 
the  morning  of  the  Sabbath,  fifty  days  passed;  *'and 
when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,"  came  that 
great  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  conversion  of 
three  thousand  out  of  many  lands  (Acts  ii.),  and  there- 
with the  formation  of  that  Church  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment  whose    members    the    Apostle    James    declares 
(i.  18)  to  be  "  a  kind  of  firstfruits  of  God's  creatures." 
Thus,  as  the  sheaf  had  typified  Christ  as  **  the  First- 
born from  the  dead,"  the  presentation  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  of  the  two  wave  loaves,  the  product  of  the 
sheaf  of  grain,  no  less  evidently  typified  the  presenta- 
tion unto  God  of  the  Church  of  the  first-born,  the  first- 
fruits  of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection,  as  constituted 
on  that  sacred  day.     This  then  was  the  complete  fulfil- 
ment of  the  feast  of  weeks  regarded  as  a  redemptive 
type,  showing  how,  not  only  rest,  but  also  redemption 
was  comprehended  in  the  significance  of  the  sabbatic 
idea.      And  yet,    that   complete   redemption   was   not 
therewith  attained  by  that  Church  of  the  first-born  on 
Pentecost  was  presignified  in  that  the  two  wave-loaves 
were  to  be  baken  with  leaven.    The  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  had   exhibited   the  ideal  of  the  Christian  life; 
that    of    firstfruits,    the    imperfection    of   the   earthly 
attainment.     On  earth  the  leaven  of  sin  still  abides. 

The  Feast  of  Trumpets. 

xxiii.  23-25. 

"And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  saying,  In  the  seventh  month,  in  the  first  day  of  the  month, 
shall  be  a  solemn  rest  unto  you,  a  memorial  of  blowing  of  trumpets, 
an  holy  convocation.  Ye  shall  do  no  servile  work :  and  ye  shall 
offer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord." 

By  a  very  natural  association  of  thought,  in  ver.  22 
the  direction  to  leave  the  gleaning  of  the  harvest  for 


462  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

the  poor  and  the  stranger  is  repeated  verbally  from 
chap.  xix.  9;  lO.  Thereupon  we  pass  from  the  feast 
of  the  seventh  week  to  the  solemnities  of  the  seventh 
month,  in  which  the  series  of  annual  sabbatic  seasons 
ended.  It  was  thus,  by  eminence,  the  sabbatic  season 
of  the  year.  Of  the  ^*  set  times  "  of  this  chapter,  three 
fell  in  this  month,  and  of  these,  two — the  day  of  atone- 
ment and  tabernacles — were  of  supreme  significance : 
the  former  being  distinguished  by  the  most  august 
religious  solemnity  of  the  year,  the  entrance  of  the 
high  priest  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  to  make  atonement 
for  the  sins  of  the  nation  ;  the  latter  marking  the  com- 
pletion of  the  ingathering  of  the  products  of  the  year, 
with  the  fruit,  the  oil,  and  the  wine.  Of  this  sabbatic 
month,  it  is  directed  (w.  23-25)  that  the  first  day  be 
kept  as  a  shabbathoUy  "a  solemn  rest,"  marked  by 
abstinence  from  all  the  ordinary  business  of  life,  and 
a  holy  convocation.  The  special  ceremony  of  the  day, 
which  gave  it  its  name,  is  described  as  a  "memorial 
of  blowing  of  trumpets."  This  "  blowing  of  trumpets  " 
was  a  reminder,  not  from  Israel  to  God,  as  some  have 
fancied,  but  from  God  to  Israel.  It  was  an  announce- 
ment from  the  King  of  Israel  to  His  people  that  the 
glad  sabbatic  month  had  begun,  and  that  the  great  day 
of  atonement,  and  the  supreme  festivity  of  the  feast  of 
tabernacles,  was  now  at  hand. 

That  the  first  day  of  this  sabbatic  month  should  be 
thus  sanctified  was  but  according  to  the  Mosaic  prin- 
ciple that  the  consecration  of  anything  signifies  the  con- 
secration unto  God  of  the  whole.  "  If  the  firstfruit  is 
holy,  so  also  the  lump;"  in  like  manner,  if  the  first  day, 
so  is  the  month.  Trumpets — though  not  the  same 
probably  as  used  on  this  occasion — were  also  blown  on 
other  occasions,  and,  in  particular,  at  the  time  of  each 


xxiii.  1-44.]     THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  463 

new  moon;  but,  according  to  tradition,  these  only  by 
the  priests  and  at  the  central  sanctuary  ;  while  in  this 
feast  of  trumpets  every  one  blew  who  would,  and 
throughout  the  whole  land. 

The  Day  of  Atonement. 

xxiii.  26-32. 

"And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  sajdng,  Howbeit  on  the  tenth 
day  of  this  seventh  month  is  the  day  of  atonement :  it  shall  be  an 
holy  convocation  unto  you,  and  ye  shall  afflict  your  souls;  and  ye 
stall  offer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord.  And  ye  shall  do 
no  manner  of  work  in  that  same  day  :  for  it  is  a  day  of  atonement,  to 
make  atonement  for  you  before  the  Lord  your  God.  For  whatsoever 
soul  it  be  that  shall  not  be  afflicted  in  that  same  day,  he  shall  be  cut 
off  from  his  people.  And  whatsoever  soul  it  be  that  doeth  any 
manner  of  work  in  that  same  day,  that  soul  will  I  destroy  from 
among  his  people.  Ye  shall  do  no  manner  of  work:  it  is  a  statute 
for  ever  throughout  your  generations  in  all  your  dwellings.  It  shall 
be  unto  you  a  sabbath  of  solemn  rest,  and  ye  shall  afflict  your  souls ; 
in  the  ninth  day  of  the  month  at  even,  from  even  unto  even,  shall  ye 
keep  your  sabbath." 

After  this  festival  of  annunciation,  followed,  on  the 
tenth  day  of  the  month,  the  great  annual  day  of  atone- 
ment. This  has  already  come  before  us  (chap,  xiii.)  in 
its  relation  to  the  sacrificial  system,  of  which  the  sin- 
offering  of  this  day  was  the  culmination.  But  this 
chapter  brings  it  before  us  in  another  aspect,  namely, 
in  its  relation  to  the  annual  septenary  series  of  sacred 
seasons,  the  final  festival  of  which  it  preceded  and 
introduced. 

Its  significance,  as  thus  coming  in  this  final  seventh 
and  sabbatic  month  of  the  ecclesiastical  year,  lay  not 
merely  in  the  strictness  of  the  rest  which  was  com- 
manded (vv.  28-30)  from  every  manner  of  work,  but, 
still  more,  in  that  it  expressed  in  a  far  higher  degree 
than   any  other   festival    the   other   sabbatic   idea   of 


464  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


complete  restoration  brought  in  through  expiation  for 
sin.  This  was  indeed  the  central  thought  of  the  whole 
ceremonial  of  the  day, — the  complete  removal  of  all 
those  sins  of  the  nation  which  stood  between  them 
and  God,  and  hindered  complete  restoration  to  God's 
favour.  And  while  this  restoration  was  symbolised 
by  the  sacrifice  of  the  sin-offering,  and  its  presentation 
and  acceptance  before  Jehovah  in  the  Holy  of  Holies ; 
yet,  that  none  might  hence  argue  from  the  fact  of 
atonement  to  license  to  sin,  it  was  ordained  (ver.  27) 
that  the  people  should  '*  afflict  their  souls,"  namely,  by 
fasting,^  in  token  of  their  penitence  for  the  sins  for 
which  atonement  was  made ;  and  the  absolute  necessity 
of  this  condition  of  repentance  in  order  to  any  benefit 
from  the  high-priestly  sacrifice  and  intercession  was 
further  emphasised  by  the  solemn  threat  (ver.  29) : 
''  Whatsoever  soul  it  be  that  shall  not  be  afflicted  in 
that  same  day,  he  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people." 

These  then  were  the  lessons — lessons  of  transcen- 
dent moment  for  all  people  and  all  ages — which  were 
set  forth  in  the  great  atonement  of  the  sabbatic  month, 
— the  complete  removal  of  sin  by  an  expiatory  offering, 
conditioned  on  the  part  of  the  worshipper  by  the 
obedience  of  faith  and  sincere  repentance  for  the  sin, 
and  issuing  in  rest  and  full  establishment  in  God's 
loving  favour. 

The  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 

xxiii.  33-43. 

■'  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  saying,  On  the  fifteenth  day  of  this  seventh  month  is  the 

*  Compare  Isa.  Iviii.  3-7,  Zech.  vii.  5,  where  the  necessity  of  the 
inward  sorrow  for  sin  and  turning  unto  God,  in  connection  with  this 
fast  of  the  seventh  month,  is  solemnly  urged  upon  Israel. 


xxiii.  1-44.]     THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  46S 


feast  of  tabernacles  for  seven  days  unto  the  Lord.  On  the  first  day 
shall  be  an  holy  convocation :  ye  shall  do  no  servile  work.  Seven 
days  ye  shall  offer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  :  on  the 
eighth  day  shall  be  an  holy  convocation  unto  you;  and  ye  shall  offer 
an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  :  it  is  a  solemn  assembly ;  ye 
shall  do  no  servile  work.  These  are  the  set  feasts  of  the  Lord, 
which  ye  shall  proclaim  to  be  holy  convocations,  to  offer  an  offering 
made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord,  a  burnt  offering,  and  a  meal  ofiering,  a 
sacrifice,  and  drink  offerings,  each  on  its  own  day :  beside  the 
sabbaths  of  the  Lord,  and  beside  your  gifts,  and  beside  all  your 
vows,  and  beside  all  your  freewill  offerings,  which  ye  give  unto  the 
Lord.  Howbeit  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  seventh  month,  when  ye 
have  gathered  in  the  fruits  of  the  land,  ye  shall  keep  the  feast  of  the 
Lord  seven  days:  on  the  first  day  shall  be  a  solemn  rest,  and  on 
the  eighth  day  shall  be  a  solemn  rest.  And  ye  shall  take  you  on  the 
first  day  the  fruit  of  goodly  trees,  branches  of  palm  trees,  and  boughs 
of  thick  trees,  and  willows  of  the  brook  ;  and  ye  shall  rejoice  before 
the  Lord  your  God  seven  days.  And  ye  shall  keep  it  a  feast  unto 
the  Lord  seven  days  in  the  year  :  it  is  a  statute  for  ever  in  your 
generations  :  ye  shall  keep  it  in  the  seventh  month.  Ye  shall  dwell 
in  booths  seven  days ;  all  that  are  homeborn  in  Israel  shall  dwell  in 
booths :  that  your  generations  may  know  that  I  made  the  children  of 
Israel  to  dwell  in  booths,  when  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt  :  I  am  the  Lord  your  God." 

The  sin  of  Israel  having  been  thus  removed,  the  last 
and  the  greatest  of  all  the  feasts  followed — the  feast  of 
tabernacles  or  ingathering.  It  occupied  a  full  week 
(ver.  34),  from  the  fifteenth  to  the  twenty-second  of  the 
month,  the  first  day  being  signalised  by  a  holy  convo- 
cation and  abstinence  from  all  servile  work  (ver.  35). 
Two  reasons  are  indicated,  here  and  elsewhere,  for  the 
observance  :  the  one,  natural  (ver.  39),  the  completed 
ingathering  of  the  products  of  the  year ;  the  other, 
historical  (vv.  42,  43), — it  was  to  be  a  memorial  of  the 
days  when  Israel  dwelt  in  booths  in  the  wilderness. 
Both  ideas  were  represented  in  the  direction  (ver.  40) 
that  they  should  take  on  the  first  day  "the  fruit  of 
goodly  trees,  branches  of  palm  trees,  and  boughs  of 

30 


466  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

thick  trees,  and  willows  of  the  brook,"  fitly  symbolising 
the  product  of  the  vine  and  the  fruit-trees  which  were 
harvested  in  this  month ;  and,  making  booths  of  these,  all 
were  to  dwell  in  these  tabernacles,  and  '^  rejoice  before 
the  Lord  their  God  seven  days."  And  to  this  the  his- 
torical reason  is  added,  ^'  that  your  generations  may 
know  that  I  made  the  children  of  Israel  to  dwell  in 
booths,  when  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt." 
No  one  need  feel  any  difficulty  in  seeing  in  this  a 
connection  with  similar  harvest  and  vintage  customs 
among  other  peoples  of  that  time.  That  other  nations 
had  festivities  of  this  kind  at  that  time,  was  surely  no 
reason  why  God  should  not  order  these  to  be  taken 
up  into  the  Mosaic  law,  elevated  in  their  significance, 
and  sanctified  to  higher  ends.  Nothing  could  be  more 
fitting  than  that  the  completion  of  the  ingathering  of 
the  products  of  the  year  should  be  celebrated  as  a 
time  of  rejoicing  and  a  thanksgiving  day  before 
Jehovah.  Indeed,  so  natural  is  such  a  festivity  to 
religious  minds,  that — as  is  well  known — in  the  first 
instance,  New  England,  and  then,  afterward,  the  whole 
United  States,  and  also  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  have 
established  the  observance  of  an  annual  "Thanks- 
giving Day  "  in  the  latter  part  of  the  autumn,  which  is 
observed  by  public  religious  services,  by  suspension 
of  public  business,  and  as  a  glad  day  of  reunion  of 
kindred  and  friends.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  how 
this  last  feature  of  the  day  is  also  mentioned  in  the 
case  of  this  Hebrew  feast,  in  the  later  form  of  the  law 
(Deut.  xvi.  13-15):  "After  that  thou  hast  gathered  in 
from  thy  threshing-floor  and  from  thy  winepress  .  .  . 
thou  shalt  rejoice  in  thy  feast,  thou,  and  thy  son,  and 
thy  daughter,  and  thy  manservant,  and  thy  maidservant, 
and  the  Levite,  and  the  stranger,  and  the  fatherless, 


xxiii.  1-44.]     THE  SET  FEASTS   OF   THE  LORD.  467 

and  the  widow,  that  are  within  thy  gates,  .  .  .  and  thou 
shalt  be  altogether  joyful." 

The  chief  sentiment  of  the  feast  was  thus  joy  and 
thanksgiving  to  God  as  the  Giver  of  all  good.  Yet  the 
joy  was  not  to  be  merely  natural  and  earthly,  but 
spiritual ;  they  were  to  rejoice  (ver.  40)  '^  before  the 
Lord."  And  the  thanksgiving  was  not  to  be  expressed 
merely  in  words,  but  in  deeds.  The  week,  we  are 
elsewhere  told,  was  signalised  by  the  largest  burnt- 
offerings  of  any  of  the  feasts,  consisting  of  a  total  of 
seventy  bullocks,  beginning  with  thirteen  on  the  first 
day,  and  diminishing  by  one  each  day ;  while  these 
again  were  accompanied  daily  by  burnt-offerings  of 
fourteen  lambs  and  two  rams,  the  double  of  what  was 
enjoined  even  for  the  week  of  unleavened  bread,  with 
meal-offerings  and  drink-offerings  in  proportion.  Nor 
was  this  outward  ritual  expression  of  thanksgiving 
enough  ;  for  their  gratitude  was  to  be  further  attested 
by  taking  into  their  glad  festivities  the  Levite  who 
had  no  portion,  the  fatherless  and  the  widow,  and  even 
the  stranger. 

It  is  not  hard  to  see  the  connection  of  all  this  with 
the  historical  reference  to  the  days  of  their  wilderness 
journeyings.  Lest  they  might  forget  God  in  nature, 
they  were  to  recall  to  mind,  by  their  dwelling  in 
booths,  the  days  when  they  had  no  houses,  and  no 
fields  nor  crops,  when,  notwithstanding,  none  the  less 
easily  the  Almighty  God  of  Israel  fed  them  with  manna 
which  they  knew  not,  that  He  might  make  them  to 
"know  that  man  doth  not  live  by  bread  only,  but  by 
every  thing  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Lord  "  (Deut.  viii.  3).  There  is,  indeed,  no  better  illustra- 
tion of  the  intention  of  this  part  of  the  feast  than  those 
words  with  their  context  as  they  occur  in  Deuteronomy. 


468  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

The  ceremonies  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles  having 
been  completed  with  the  appointed  seven  days,  there 
followed  an  eighth  day, — an  holy  convocation,  a  festival 
of  solemn  rest  (vv.  36,  39).  This  last  day  of  holy 
solemnity  and  joy,  to  which  a  special  name  is  given,  is 
properly  to  be  regarded,  not  as  a  part  of  the  feast  of 
tabernacles  merely,  but  as  celebrating  the  termination 
of  the  whole  series  of  sabbatic  times  from  the  first  to 
the  seventh  month.  No  ceremonial  is  here  enjoined 
except  the  holy  convocation,  and  the  offering  of  **an 
offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord,"  with  abstinence 
from  all  servile  work. 

Typical  Meaning  of  the  Feasts  of  the 
Seventh  Month. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  earlier  feasts  of 
the  year  were  also  prophetic ;  that  Passover  and 
Unleavened  Bread  pointed  forward  to  Christ,  our 
Passover,  slain  for  us ;  Pentecost,  to  the  spiritual 
ingathering  of  the  firstfruits  of  the  world's  harvest, 
fifty  days  after  the  presentation  of  our  Lord  in  resur- 
rection, as  the  wave-sheaf  of  the  firstfruits.  We  may 
therefore  safely  infer  that  these  remaining  feasts  of  the 
seventh  month  must  be  typical  also.  But,  if  so,  typical 
of  what  ?  Two  things  may  be  safely  said  in  this 
matter.  The  significance  of  the  three  festivals  of  this 
seventh  month  must  be  interpreted  in  harmony  with 
what  has  already  passed  into  fulfilment ;  and,  in  the 
second  place,  inasmuch  as  the  feast  of  trumpets,  the 
day  of  atonement,  and  the  feast  of  tabernacles  all 
belong  to  the  seventh  and  last  month  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical year,  they  must  find  their  fulfilment  in  connection 
with  what  Scripture  calls  "  the  last  times." 

Keeping  the  first  point  in  view,  we  may  then  safely 


xxiii.  1-44.]     THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  469 

say  that  if  Pentecost  typified  the  firstfruits  of  the 
world's  harvest  in  the  ingathering  of  an  election  from 
all  nations,  the  feast  of  tabernacles  must  then  typify 
the  completion  of  that  harvest  in  a  spiritual  ingathering, 
final  and  universal.  Not  only  so,  but,  inasmuch  as 
in  the  antitypical  fulfilment  of  the  wave-sheaf  in  the 
resurrection  of  our  Lord,  we  were  reminded  that  the 
consummation  of  the  new  creation  is  in  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  and  that  in  regeneration  is  therefore 
involved  resurrection,  hence  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  as 
celebrating  the  absolute  completion  of  the  year's  har- 
vest, must  typify  also  the  resurrection  season,  when  all 
that  are  Christ's  shall  rise  from  the  dead  at  His  coming. 
And,  finally,  whereas  this  means  for  the  now  burdened 
earth  permanent  deliverance  from  the  curse,  and  the 
beginning  of  a  new  age  thus  signalised  by  glorious 
life  in  resurrection,  in  which  are  enjoyed  the  blessed 
fruits  of  life's  labours  and  pains  for  Christ,  this  was 
shadowed  forth  by  the  ordinance  that  immediately 
upon  the  seven  days  of  tabernacles  should  follow  a 
feast  of  the  eighth  day,  the  first  day  of  a  new  week,  in 
celebration  of  the  beginning  season  of  rest  from  all  the 
labours  of  the  field. 

Most  beautifully,  thus  regarded,  does  all  else  con- 
nected with  the  feast  of  tabernacles  correspond,  as  type 
to  antitype,  to  the  revelation  of  the  last  things,  and 
therein  reveal  its  truest  and  deepest  spiritual  signifi- 
cance :  the  joy,  the  reunion,  the  rejoicing  with  son  and 
with  daughter,  the  fulness  of  gladness  also  for  the 
widow  and  the  fatherless ;  and  this,  not  only  for  those 
in  Israel,  but  also  for  the  stranger,  not  of  Israel, — for 
Gentile  as  well  as  Israelite  was  to  have  part  in  the 
festivity  of  that  day ;  and,  again,  the  full  attainment  of 
the  most  complete  consecration,  signified  in  the  ten- 


470  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

fold  burnt-oifering ; — all  finds  its  place  here.  And  so 
now  we  can  see  why  it  was  that  our  Saviour  declared 
(Matt.  xiii.  39)  that  the  end  of  this  present  age  should 
be  the  time  of  harvest ;  and  how  Paul,  looking  at  the 
future  spiritual  ingathering,  places  the  ingathering  of 
the  Gentiles  (Rom.  xi.  25)  as  one  of  the  last  things. 
In  full  accord  with  this  interpretation  of  the  typical 
significance  of  this  feast  it  is  that  in  Zech.  xiv.  we 
find  it  written  that  in  the  predicted  day  of  the  Lord, 
when  (ver.  5)  the  Lord  "shall  come,  and  all  the  holy 
ones "  with  Him,  and  (ver.  9)  "  the  Lord  shall  be 
King  over  all  the  earth ;  .  .  .  the  Lord  .  .  .  one,  and 
His  name  one,"  then  (ver.  16)  "  every  one  that  is  left 
of  all  the  nations  .  .  .  shall  go  up  from  year  to  year 
to  worship  the  King,  the  Lord  of  hosts,  and  to  keep  the 
feast  of  tabernacles  ;  "  and,  moreover,  that  so  completely 
shall  consecration  be  realised  in  that  day  that  (ver.  20) 
even  upon  the  bells  of  the  horses  shall  the  words  be 
inscribed,  "  Holy  unto  the  Lord  ! " 

But  before  the  joyful  feast  of  tabernacles  could  be 
celebrated,  the  great,  sorrowful  day  of  atonement  must 
be  kept, — a  season  marked,  on  the  one  hand,  by  afflic- 
tion of  soul  throughout  all  Israel ;  on  the  other,  by  the 
complete  putting  away  of  the  sin  of  the  nation  for  the 
whole  year,  through  the  presentation  of  the  blood  of 
the  sin-offering  by  the  high  priest,  within  the  veil 
before  the  mercy  seat.  Now,  if  the  feast  of  tabernacles 
has  been  correctly  interpreted,  as  presignifying  in 
symbol  the  completion  of  the  great  world  harvest  in 
the  end  of  the  age,  does  the  prophetic  word  reveal  any- 
thing in  connection  with  the  last  things  as  preceding 
that  great  harvest,  and,  in  some  sense,  preparing  for 
and  ushering  in  that  day,  which  should  be  the  antitype 
of  the  great  day  of  atonement  ? 


xxiii.  1-44.]     THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  471 

One  can  hardly  miss  of  the  answer.  For  precisely 
that  which  the  prophets  and  apostles  both  represent 
as  the  event  which  shall  usher  in  that  great  day  of 
final  ingathering  and  of  blessed  resurrection  rest  and 
joy  in  consummated  redemption,  is  the  national  repent- 
ance of  Israel,  and  the  final  cleansing  of  their  age-long 
sin.  In  the  type,  two  things  are  conspicuous :  the 
great  sorrowing  of  the  nation  and  the  great  atonement 
putting  away  all  Israel's  sin.  And  two  things,  in  like 
manner,  are  conspicuous  in  the  prophetic  pictures  of 
the  antitype,  namely,  Israel's  heart-broken  repentance, 
and  the  removal  thereupon  of  Israel's  sin  ;  their  cleans- 
ing in  the  '^  fountain  opened  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness." 
As  Zechariah  puts  it  (xii.  10,  xiii.  i),  "I  will  pour 
upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplication  ;  and 
they  shall  look  unto  me  whom  they  have  pierced  :  and 
they  shall  mourn  for  him,  as  one  mourneth  for  his 
only  son  ; "  and  "  in  that  day  there  shall  be  a  fountain 
opened  to  the  house  of  David  and  to  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem,  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness."  And  the 
relation  of  this  cleansing  of  Israel  to  the  da3^s  of 
blessing  which  follow  is  most  explicitly  set  forth  by  the 
Apostle  Paul,  in  these  words  concerning  Israel  (Rom. 
xi.  12,  15),  ^' If  their  fall  is  the  riches  of  the  world, 
and  their  loss  the  riches  of  the  Gentiles;  how  much 
more  their  fulness  ?  If  the  casting  away  of  them  is 
the  reconciling  of  the  world,  what  shall  the  receiving 
of  them  be,  but  life  from  the  dead  ? " 

So  far,  then,  all  seems  clear.  But  the  feast  of 
trumpets  yet  remains  to  be  explained.  Has  Holy 
Scripture  predicted  anything,  falling  in  the  period 
between  Pentecost  and  the  repentance  of  Israel,  but 
specially  belonging  to  the  last  things,  which  might  with 


472  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

reason  be  regarded  as  the  antitype  of  this  joyful  feast 
of  trumpets  ?  Here,  again,  it  is  not  easy  to  go  far 
astray.  For  the  essential  idea  of  the  trumpet  call  is 
announcement,  proclamation.  From  time  to  time  all 
through  the  year  the  trumpet-call  was  heard  in  Israel ; 
but  on  this  occasion  it  became  the  feature  of  the  day, 
and  was  universal  throughout  their  land.  And,  as 
we  have  seen,  its  special  significance  for  that  time 
was  to  announce  that  the  day  of  atonement  and  the 
feast  of  ingathering,  which  typified  the  full  consum- 
mation of  the  kingdom  of  God,  were  now  at  hand. 
One  can  thus  hardly  fail  to  think  at  once  of  that  other 
event  which,  according  to  our  Lord's  express  word 
(Matt.  xxiv.  14),  is  immediately  to  precede  *'the  end," 
namely,  the  universal  proclamation  of  the  Gospel : 
*^  This  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  the 
whole  world  for  a  testimony  unto  all  the  nations;  and 
then  shall  the  end  come."  As  throughout  the  year, 
from  time  to  time,  the  trumpet  call  was  heard  in  Israel, 
but  only  in  connection  with  the  central  sanctuary;  but 
now  in  all  the  land,  as  the  chief  thing  in  the  celebration 
of  the  day  which  ushered  in  the  final  sabbatic  month, 
precisely  so  in  the  antitype.  All  through  the  ages  has 
the  Gospel  been  sounded  forth,  but  in  a  partial  and 
limited  way ;  but  at  "  the  time  of  the  end "  the  pro- 
clamation shall  become  universal.  And  thus  and  then 
shall  the  feast  of  trumpets  also,  like  Passover  and 
Pentecost,  pass  into  complete  fulfilment,  and  be  swiftly 
followed  by  Israel's  repentance  and  restoration,  and 
the  consequent  reappearing,  as  Peter  predicts  (Acts 
iii.  19-21  R.V.),  of  Israel's  High  Priest  from  within  the 
veil,  and  thereupon  the  harvest  of  the  world,  the  resur- 
rection of  the  just,  and  the  consummation  upon  earth  of 
the  glorified  kingdom  of  God. 


xxiii.  1-44.]     THE  SET  FEASTS  OF  THE  LORD.  473 

Of  many  thoughts  of  a  practical  kind  which  this 
chapter  suggests,  we  may  perhaps  well  dwell  especially 
on  one.  The  ideal  of  religious  life,  which  these  set 
times  of  the  Lord  kept  before  Israel,  was  a  religion  of 
joy.  Again  and  again  is  this  spoken  of  in  the  accounts 
of  these  feasts.  This  is  true  even  of  Passover,  with 
which  we  oftener,  though  mistakenly,  connect  thoughts 
of  sadness  and  gloom.  Yet  Passover  was  a  feast  of 
joy;  it  celebrated  the  birthday  of  the  nation,  and  a 
deliverance  unparalleled  in  history.  The  only  excep- 
tion to  this  joyful  character  in  all  these  sacred  times  is 
found  in  the  day  of  atonement ;  but  it  is  itself  instruc- 
tive on  the  same  point,  teaching  most  clearly  that  in 
the  Divine  order,  as  in  the  necessity  of  the  case,  the  joy 
in  the  Lord,  of  which  the  feast  of  ingathering  was  the 
supreme  expression,  must  be  preceded  by  and  grounded 
in  an  accepted  expiation  and  true  penitence  for  sin. 

So  it  is  still  with  the  religion  of  the  Bible :  it  is  a 
religion  of  joy.  God  does  not  wish  us  to  be  gloomy 
and  sad.  He  desires  that  we  should  ever  be  joyful 
before  Him,  and  thus  find  by  blessed  experience  that 
"  the  joy  of  the  Lord  is  our  strength."  Also,  in  par- 
ticular, we  do  well  to  observe  further  that,  inasmuch 
as  all  these  set  times  were  sabbatic  seasons,  joyfulness 
is  inseparably  connected  with  the  Biblical  conception 
of  the  Sabbath.  This  has  been  too  often  forgotten ; 
and  the  weekly  day  of  sabbatic  rest  has  sometimes 
been  made  a  day  of  stern  repression  and  forbidding 
gloom.  How  utterly  astray  are  such  conceptions  from 
the  Divine  ideal,  we  shall  perhaps  the  more  clearly 
see  when  we  call  to  mind  the  thought  which  appears 
more  or  less  distinctly  in  all  these  sabbatic  seasons, 
that  every  Sabbath  points  forward  to  the  eternal  joy 
of  the  consummated  kingdom,  the  sabbath  rest  which 
remaineth  for  the  people  of  God  (Heb.  iv.  9). 


CHAPTER   XXV. 

THE  HOLY  LIGHT  AND   THE  SHEW-BREAD : 
THE  BLASPHEMERS  END. 

Lev.  XXIV.  1-23. 

IT  is  not  easy  to  determine  with  confidence  the 
association  of  thought  which  occasioned  the  inter- 
position of  this  chapter,  with  its  somewhat  disconnected 
contents,  between  chap,  xxiii.,  on  the  set  times  of  holy 
convocation,  and  chap,  xxv.,  on  the  sabbatic  and 
jubilee  years,  which  latter  would  seem  most  naturally 
to  have  followed  the  former  immediately,  as  relating 
to  the  same  subject  of  sacred  times.  Perhaps  the  best 
explanation  of  the  connection  with  the  previous  chapter 
is  that  which  finds  it  in  the  reference  to  the  olive  oil 
for  the  lamps  and  the  meal  for  the  shew-bread.  The 
feast  of  tabernacles,  directions  for  which  had  just  been 
given,  celebrated  the  completed  ingathering  of  the 
harvest  of  the  year,  both  of  grain  and  of  fruit ;  and 
here  Israel  is  told  what  is  to  be  done  with  a  certain 
portion  of  each. 

The  Ordering  of  the  Light  in  the  Holy  Place. 

XXIV.  1-4. 

"  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Command  the  children 
of  Israel,  that  they  bring  unto  thee  pure  olive  oil  beaten  for  the  light, 
to  cause  a  lamp  to  burn  continually.  Without  the  veil  of  the  testimony, 
in  the  tent  of  meeting,  shall  Aaron  order  it  from  evening  to  morning 
before  the  Lord  continually :  it  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  throughout 
your  generations.  He  shall  order  the  lamps  upon  the  pure  candlestick 
before  the  Lord  continually." 


xxiv.  1-23.]  THE  HOLY  LIGHT.  475 

First  (vv.  1-4)  is  given  the  direction  for  the  ordering 
of  the  daily  light,  which  was  to  burn  from  evening  until 
morning  in  the  holy  place  continually.  The  people 
themselves  are  to  furnish  the  oil  for  the  seven-branched 
candlestick  out  of  the  product  of  their  olive  yards. 
The  oil  is  to  be  '^  pure,"  carefully  cleansed  from  leaves 
and  all  impurities ;  and  **  beaten,"  that  is,  not  extracted 
by  heat  and  pressure,  as  are  inferior  grades,  but  simply 
by  beating  and  macerating  the  olives  with  water, — a 
process  which  gives  the  very  best.  The  point  in  these 
specifications  is  evidently  this,  that  for  this,  as  always, 
they  are  to  give  to  God's  service  the  very  best, — an 
eternal  principle  which  rules  in  all  acceptable  service 
to  God.  The  oil  is  to  come  from  the  people  in  general , 
so  that  the  illuminating  of  the  Holy  Place,  although 
specially  tended  by  the  high  priest,  is  yet  constituted 
a  service  in  which  all  the  children  of  Israel  have  some 
part.  The  oil  was  to  be  used  to  supply  the  seven 
lamps  upon  the  golden  candlestick  which  was  placed 
on  the  south  side  of  the  Holy  Place,  without  the  veil 
of  the  testimony,  in  the  tent  of  meeting.  This  Aaron 
was  to  ^*  order  from  evening  to  morning  before  the 
Lord  continually."  According  to  Exod.  xxv.  31-40,  this 
candlestick — or,  more  properly,  lampstand — was  made 
of  a  single  shaft,  with  three  branches  on  either  side, 
each  with  a  cup  at  the  end  like  an  almond  blossom ; 
so  that,  with  that  on  the  top  of  the  central  shaft,  it 
was  a  stand  of  seven  lamps,  in  a  conventional  imitation 
of  an  almond  tree. 

The  significance  of  the  symbol  is  brought  clearly 
before  us  in  Zech.  iv.  I- 1 4,  where  the  seven-branched 
candlestick  symbolises  Israel  as  the  congregation  of  God, 
the  giver  of  the  light  of  life  to  the  world.  And  yet  a 
lamp  can  burn  only  as  it  is  supplied  with  oil  and  trimmed 


476  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

and  cared  for.  And  so  in  the  symbol  of  Zechariah 
the  prophet  sees  the  golden  candlestick  supplied  with 
oil  conveyed  through  two  golden  pipes  into  which 
flowed  the  golden  oil,  mysteriously  self-distilled  from 
two  olive  trees  on  either  side  the  candlestick.  And 
the  explanation  given  is  this  :  **  Not  by  might,  nor  by 
power,  but  by  My  Spirit,"  saith  the  Lord.  Thus  we 
learn  that  the  golden  seven-branched  lampstand  denotes 
Israel,  more  precious  than  gold  in  God's  sight,  appointed 
of  Him  to  be  the  giver  of  hght  to  the  world.  And 
yet  by  this  requisition  of  oil  for  the  golden  candlestick 
the  nation  was  reminded  that  their  power  to  give  light 
was  dependent  upon  the  supply  of  the  heavenly  grace 
of  God's  Spirit,  and  the  continual  ministrations  of  the 
priest  in  the  Holy  Place.  And  how  this  ordering  of 
the  light  might  be  a  symbolic  act  of  worship,  we  can 
at  once  see,  when  we  recall  the  word  of  Jesus  (Matt. 
V.  14,  16)  :  "Ye  are  the  hght  of  the  world.  .  .  .  Let 
your  light  shine  before  men,  that  they  may  see  your 
good  works,  and  gloriiy  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 
How  pertinent  for  instruction  still  in  all  its  deepest 
teaching  is  this  ordinance  of  the  lamp  continually  burn- 
ing in  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  is  vividly  brought 
before  us  in  the  Apocalypse  (i.  12,  13),  where  we 
read  that  seven  candlesticks  appeared  in  vision  to  the 
Apostle  John  ;  and  Christ,  in  His  glory,  robed  in  high- 
priestly  vesture,  was  seen  walking  up  and  down,  after 
the  manner  of  Aaron,  in  the  midst  of  the  seven  candle- 
sticks, in  care  and  watch  of  the  manner  of  their  burning. 
And  as  to  the  significance  of  this  vision,  the  Apostle 
was  expressly  told  (ver.  20)  that  the  seven  candlesticks 
were  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia, — types  of  the  collective 
Church  in  all  the  centuries.  Thus,  as  in  the  language  of 
this  Levitical  symbol,  we  are  taught  that  in  the  highest 


xxiv.  1-23.]     THE  ''BREAD   OF  THE  PRESENCE."  477 

sense  it  is  the  office  of  the  Church  to  give  light  in 
darkness ;  but  that  she  can  only  do  this  as  the  heavenly 
oil  is  supplied,  and  each  lamp  is  cared  for,  by  the  high- 
priestly  ministrations  of  her  risen  Lord. 

The  "  Bread  of  the  Presence." 

xxiv.  5-9. 

"And  thou  shalt  take  fine  flour,  and  bake  twelve  cakes  thereof: 
two  tenth  parts  of  an  ephah  shall  be  in  one  cake.  And  thou  shalt 
set  them  in  two  rows,  six  on  a  row,  upon  the  pure  table  before  the 
Lord.  And  thou  shalt  put  pure  frankincense  upon  each  row,  that  it 
may  be  to  the  bread  for  a  memorial,  even  an  offering  made  by  fire 
unto  the  Lord.  Every  sabbath  day  he  shall  set  it  in  order  before  the 
Lord  continually ;  it  is  on  the  behalf  of  the  children  of  Israel,  an  ever- 
lasting covenant.  And  it  shall  be  for  Aaron  and  his  sons ;  and  they 
shall  eat  it  in  a  holy  place  :  for  it  is  most  holy  unto  him  of  the  offer- 
ings of  the  Lord  made  by  fire  by  a  perpetual  statute." 

Next  follows  the  ordinance  for  the  preparation  and 
presentation  of  the  "  shew-bread,"  lit.,  "  bread  of  the 
Face,"  or  "  Presence,"  sc.  of  God.  This  was  to  consist 
of  twelve  cakes,  each  to  be  made  of  two  tenth  parts 
of  an  ephah  of  fine  flour,  which  was  to  be  placed  in 
two  rows  or  piles,  "  upon  the  pure  table  "  of  gold  that 
stood  before  the  Lord,  in  the  Holy  Place,  opposite  to 
the  golden  candlestick.  On  each  pile  was  to  be  placed 
(ver.  7)  ^'  pure  frankincense," — doubtless,  as  tradition 
says,  placed  in  the  golden  spoons,  or  little  cups  (Exod. 
xxxvii.  16).  Every  sabbath  (vv.  8,  9)  fresh  bread  was 
to  be  so  placed,  when  the  old  became  the  food  of  Aaron 
and  his  sons  only,  as  belonging  to  the  order  of  things 
*'  most  holy ; "  the  frankincense  which  had  been  its 
*' memorial"  having  been  first  burned,  '^an  offering 
made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  "  (ver.  7).  Tradition  adds 
that  the  bread  was  always  unleavened ;    a  few  have 


478  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

called  this  in  question,  but  this  has  been  only  on  theo- 
retic grounds,  and  without  evidence ;  and  when  we 
remember  how  stringent  was  the  prohibition  of  leaven 
even  in  any  offerings  made  by  fire  upon  the  altar  of  the 
outer  court,  much  less  is  it  likely  that  it  could  have 
been  tolerated  here  in  the  Holy  Place  immediately  before 
the  veil. 

This  bread  of  the  Presence  must  be  regarded  as  in 
its  essential  nature  a  perpetual  meal-offering, — the 
meal-offering  of  the  Holy  Place,  as  the  others  were  of 
the  outer  court.^  The  material  was  the  same,  cakes 
of  fine  flour ;  to  this  frankincense  must  be  added  as  a 
'^  memorial,"  as  in  the  meal-offerings  of  the  outer  court. 
Such  part  of  the  offering  as  was  not  burned,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  others,  was  to  be  eaten  by  the  priests  only, 
as  a  thing  "  most  holy."  It  differed  from  those  in  that 
there  were  always  the  twelve  cakes,  one  for  each  tribe ; 
and  in  that  while  they  were  repeatedly  offered,  this 
lay  before  the  Lord  continually.  The  altar  of  burnt- 
offering  might  sometimes  be  empty  of  the  meal-offering, 
but  the  table  of  shew-bread,  "  the  table  of  the  Presence," 
never. 

In  general,  therefore,  the  meaning  of  the  offering  of 
the  shew-bread  must  be  the  same  as  that  of  the  meal- 
offerings  ;  like  them  it  symbolised  the  consecration 
unto  the  Lord  of  the  product  of  the  labour  of  the  hands, 
and  especially  of  the  daily  food  as  prepared  for  use. 
But  in  this,  by  the  twelve  cakes  for  the  twelve  tribes 
it  was  emphasised  that  God  requires,  not  only  such 
consecration  of  service  and  acknowledgment  of  Him 
from  individuals,  as  in  the  law  of  chap,  ii.,  but  from 
the  nation  in  its  collective  and  organised  capacity ;  and 

*  See  Kurtz,  "Der  Alttestamentliche  Opfercultus,"  p.  271. 


xxiv.  1-23.]     THE  ''BREAD  OF  THE  PRESENCE:*  479 

that  not  merely  on  such  occasions  as  pious  impulse 
might  direct,  but  continuously. 

In  these  days,  when  the  tendency  among  us  is  to  an 
extreme  individualism,  and  therewith  to  an  ignoring  or 
denial  of  any  claim  of  God  upon  nations  and  communi- 
ties as  such,  it  is  of  great  need  to  insist  upon  this 
thought  thus  symbolised.  It  was  not  enough  in  God's 
sight  that  individual  Israelites  should  now  and  then 
offer  their  meal-offerings ;  the  Lord  required  a  meal- 
offering  "on  behalf  of  the  children  of  Israel"  as  a 
wholcy  and  of  each  particular  tribe  of  the  twelve,  each 
in  its  corporate  capacity.  There  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  in  the  Divine  government  the  principle  which  took 
this  symbolical  expression  is  obsolete.  It  is  not  enough 
that  individuals  among  us  consecrate  the  fruit  of  their 
labours  to  the  Lord.  The  Lord  requires  such  con- 
secration of  every  nation  collectively ;  and  of  each  of 
the  subdivisions  in  that  nation,  such  as  cities,  towns, 
states,  provinces,  and  so  on.  Yet  where  in  the  wide 
world  can  we  see  one  such  consecrated  nation  ?  Can 
we  find  one  such  consecrated  province  or  state,  or  even 
such  a  city  or  town  ?  Where  then,  from  this  biblical 
and  spiritual  point  of  view,  is  the  ground  for  the  reli- 
gious boasting  of  the  Christian  progress  of  our  day 
which  one  sometimes  hears  ?  Must  we  not  say,  "It  is 
excluded  "  ? 

Typically,  the  shew-bread,  like  the  other  meal- 
offerings  with  their  frankincense,  must  foreshadow  the 
work  of  the  Messiah  in  holy  consecration ;  and,  in 
particular,  as  the  One  in  whom  the  ideal  of  Israel 
was  perfectly  realised,  and  who  thus  represented  in  His 
person  the  whole  Israel  of  God.  But  the  bread  of  the 
Presence  represents  His  holy  obedience  in  self-consecra- 
tion, not  merely,  as  in  the  other  meal-offerings,  pre- 


48o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

sented  in  the  outer  court,  in  the  sight  of  men,  as  in  His 
earthly  life;  but  here,  rather,  as  continually  presented 
before  the  '^  Face  of  God,"  in  the  Holy  Place,  where 
Christ  appears  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us.  And 
in  this  symbolism,  which  has  been  already  justified, 
we  may  recognise  the  element  of  truth  that  there  is  in 
the  view  held  by  Bahr,^  apparently,  as  by  others,  that 
the  shew-bread  typified  Christ  Himself  regarded  as 
the  bread  of  life  to  His  people.  Not  indeed,  precisely, 
that  Christ  Himself  is  brought  before  us  here,  but 
rather  His  holy  obedience,  continually  offered  unto 
God  in  the  heavenly  places,  in  behalf  of  the  true  Israel, 
and  as  sealing  and  confirming  the  everlasting  covenant ; 
— this  is  what  this  symbol  brings  before  us.  And  it 
is  as  we  by  faith  appropriate  Him,  as  thus  ever  pre- 
senting His  holy  life  to  God  for  us,  that  He  becomes 
for  us  the  Bread  of  Life. 

The  Penalty  of  Blasphemy. 

xxiv.  10-23. 

"And  the  son  of  an  Israelitish  woman,  whose  father  was  an 
Egyptian,  went  out  among  the  children  of  Israel :  and  the  son  of  the 
Israelitish  woman  and  a  man  of  Israel  strove  together  in  the  camp ; 
and  the  son  of  the  Israelitish  woman  blasphemed  the  Name,  and 
cursed :  and  they  brought  him  unto  Moses.  And  his  mother's  name 
was  Shelomith,  the  daughter  of  Dibri,  of  the  tribe  of  Dan.  And  they 
put  him  in  ward,  that  it  might  be  declared  unto  them  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Lord.  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying.  Bring  forth 
him  that  hath  cursed  without  the  camp ;  and  let  all  that  heard  him 
lay  their  hands  upon  his  head,  and  let  all  the  congregation  stone  him. 
And  thou  shalt  speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  saying.  Whosoever 
curseth  his  God  shall  bear  his  sin.  And  he  that  blasphemeth  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death  ;  all  the  congrega- 
tion shall  certainly  stone  him  :  as  well  the  stranger,  as  the  home- 
born,  when  he  blasphemeth  the  name  of  the  Lord,  shall  be  put  to 
death.     And  he  that  smiteth  any  man  mortally  shall  surely  be  put 

'  "  Symbolik  des  Mosaischen  Cultus,"  erster  Band,  pp.  428-432. 


xxiv.  1-23.]      THE  PENALTY  OF  BLASPHEMY.  481 

to  death ;  and  he  that  smiteth  a  beast  mortally  shall  make  it  good : 
life  for  life.  And  if  a  man  cause  a  blemish  in  his  neighbour ;  as  he 
hath  done,  so  shall  it  be  done  to  him  ;  breach  for  breach,  eye  for  eye, 
tooth  for  tooth :  as  he  hath  caused  a  blemish  in  a  man,  so  shall  it  be 
rendered  unto  him.  And  he  that  killeth  a  beast  shall  make  it  good  : 
and  he  that  killeth  a  man  shall  be  put  to  death.  Ye  shall  have  one 
manner  of  law,  as  well  for  the  stranger,  as  for  the  homeborn :  for  I 
am  the  Lord  your  God.  And  Moses  spake  to  the  children  of  Israel, 
and  they  brought  forth  him  that  had  cursed  out  of  the  camp,  and 
stoned  him  with  stones.  And  the  children  of  Israel  did  as  the  Lord 
commanded  Moses." 

The  connection  of  this  section  with  the  preceding 
context  is  now  impossible  to  determine.  Very  possibly 
its  insertion  here  may  be  due  to  the  occurrence  here 
described  having  taken  place  at  the  time  of  the  delivery 
of  the  preceding  laws  concerning  the  oil  for  the  golden 
lampstand  and  the  shew-bread.  However,  the  pur- 
port and  intention  of  the  narrative  is  very  plain, 
namely,  to  record  the  law  delivered  by  the  Lord  for 
the  punishment  of  blasphemy ;  and  therewith  also  His 
command  that  the  penalty  of  broken  law,  both  in  this 
case  and  in  others  specified,  should  be  exacted  both 
from  native  Israelites  and  from  foreigners  alike. 

The  incident  which  was  the  occasion  of  the  promul- 
gation of  these  laws  was  as  follows.  The  son  of  an 
Israelitish  woman  by  an  Egyptian  husband  fell  into  a 
quarrel  in  the  camp.  As  often  happens  in  such  cases, 
the  one  sin  led  on  to  another  and  yet  graver  sin ;  the 
half-caste  man  "  blasphemed  the  Name,  and  cursed ; " 
whereupon  he  was  arrested  and  put  into  confinement 
until  the  will  of  the  Lord  might  be  ascertained  in  his 
case.  "  The  Name  "  is  of  course  the  name  of  God  ; 
the  meaning  is  that  he  used  the  holy  name  profanely 
in  cursing.  The  passage,  together  with  ver.  16,  is  of 
special  and  curious  interest,  as  upon  these  two  the  Jews 
have  based  their  well-known  belief  that  it  is  unlawful 

31 


482  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


to  Utter  the  Name  which  we  commonly  vocalise  as 
Jehovah  ;  whence  it  has  followed  that  wherever  in  the 
Hebrew  text  the  Name  occurs  it  is  written  with  the 
vowels  of  Adondy,  "  Lord,"  to  indicate  to  the  reader 
that  this  word  was  to  be  substituted  for  the  proper 
name, — a  usage  which  is  represented  in  the  Septuagint 
by  the  appearance  of  the  Greek  word  Kurios,  "  Lord,"  in 
all  places  where  the  Hebrew  has  Jehovah  (or  Yahveh) ; 
and  which,  in  both  the  authorised  and  revised  ver- 
sions, is  still  maintained  in  the  retention  of  "  Lord  " 
in  all  such  cases, — a  relic  of  Jewish  superstition  which 
one  could  greatly  wish  that  the  Revisers  had  banished 
from  the  English  version,  especially  as  in  many  pas- 
sages it  totally  obscures  to  the  English  reader  the 
exact  sense  of  the  text,  wherever  it  turns  upon  the 
choice  of  this  name.  It  is  indeed  true  that  the  word 
rendered  "  blaspheme "  has  the  meaning  "  to  pro- 
nounce," as  the  Targumists  and  other  Hebrew  writers 
render  it ;  but  that  it  also  means  simply  to  "  revile," 
and  in  many  places  cannot  possibly  be  rendered  "  to 
pronounce,"  is  perforce  admitted  even  by  Jewish 
scholars.^  To  give  it  the  other  meaning  here  were  so 
plainly  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament, 
debasing  reverence  to  superstition,  that  no  argument 
against  it  will  be  required  with  any  but  a  Jew. 

And  this  young  man,  in  the  heat  of  his  passion, 
■^^  reviled  the  Name."  The  words  "  of  the  Lord  "  are  not 
in  the  Hebrew;  the  name  '^Jehovah"  is  thus  brought 
before  us  expressively  as  The  Name,  par  excellence^ 
of  God,  as  revealing   Himself  in  covenant  for  man's 


'  See,  e.g.,  Rabbi  Dr.  J.  Levy,  "  Chaldaisches  Worterbuch,"  zweiter 
Band,  pp.  301,  302;  and  compare  Numb,  xxiii.  8,  Prov.  xi.  26, 
jcxiv.  24,  where  the  same  Hebrew  word  is  used. 


xxiv.  1-23.]       THE  PENALTY  OF  BLASPHEMY.  483 


redemption.^  Horrified  at  the  man's  wickedness,  ^'they 
brought  him  unto  Moses ; "  and  ^*  they  put  him  in 
ward  "  (ver.  12),  '*  that  it  might  be  declared  unto  them 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  "  what  should  be  done  unto 
him.  This  was  necessary  because  the  case  involved 
two  points  upon  which  no  revelation  had  been  made : 
first,  as  to  what  should  be  the  punishment  of  blas- 
phemy; and  secondly,  whether  the  law  in  such  cases 
applied  to  a  foreigner  as  well  as  to  the  native 
Israelite.  The  answer  of  God  decided  these  points.  As 
to  the  first  (ver.  15),  *' Whosoever  curseth  his  God  shall 
bear  his  sin,"  i.e.y  he  shall  be  held  subject  to  punish- 
ment; and  (ver.  16),  *'He  that  blasphemeth  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death ;  all  the  congre- 
gation shall  certainly  stone  him."  And  as  to  the  second 
point,  it  is  added,  "as  well  the  stranger,  as  the  homeborn, 
when  he  blasphemeth  the  Name,  shall  be  put  to  death." 

Then  follows  (vv.  17-21)  a  declaration  of  penalties 
for  murder,  for  killing  a  neighbour's  beast,  and  for 
inflicting  a  bodily  injury  on  one's  neighbour.  These 
were  to  be  settled  on  the  principle  of  the  lex  talioniSy 
life  for  life,  '*  breach  for  breach,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for 
tooth ; "  in  the  case  of  the  beast  killed,  its  value  was 
to  be  made  good  to  the  owner.  All  these  laws  had 
been  previously  given  (Exod.  xxi.  12,  23-36);  but  are 
repeated  here  plainly  for  the  purpose  of  expressly 
ordering  that  these  laws,  like  that  now  declared  for 
blasphemy,  were  to  be  applied  alike  to  the  home-born 
and  the  stranger  (ver.  22). 

Much  cavil  have  these  laws  occasioned,  the  more  so 
that  Christ  Himself  is  cited  as  having  condemned  them 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  v.   38-42).     But 

*  Cf.  the  expression  used  with  reference  to  Jesus  Christ,  Phil.  ii.  9 
(RV.),  "  the  name  which  is  above  every  name," 


484  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

how  little  difficulty  really  exists  here  will  appear  from 
the  following  considerations.  The  Jews  from  of  old 
have  maintained  that  the  law  of  ^^  an  eye  for  eye/'  as 
here  given,  was  not  intended  to  authorise  private  and 
irresponsible  retaliation  in  kind,  but  only  after  due  trial 
and  by  legal  process.  Moreover,  even  in  such  cases, 
they  have  justly  remarked  that  the  law  here  given 
was  not  meant  to  be  applied  always  with  the  most 
exact  literality ;  but  that  it  was  evidently  intended  to 
permit  the  commutation  of  the  penalty  by  such  a  fine 
as  the  judges  might  determine.  They  justly  argue 
from  the  explicit  prohibition  of  the  acceptance  of  any 
such  satisfaction  in  commutation  in  the  case  of  a 
murderer  (Numb.  xxxv.  31,  32)  that  this  implies  the 
permission  of  it  in  the  instances  here  mentioned ; — 
a  conclusion  the  more  necessary  when  it  is  observed 
that  the  literal  application  of  the  law  in  all  cases  would 
often  result  in  defeating  the  very  ends  of  exact  justice 
which  it  was  evidently  intended  to  secure.  For  instance, 
the  loss  by  a  one-eyed  man  of  his  only  eye,  under  such 
an  interpretation,  would  be  much  more  than  an  equiva- 
lent for  the  loss  of  an  eye  which  he  had  inflicted  upon 
a  neighbour  who  had  both  eyes.  Hence,  Jewish  history 
contains  no  record  of  the  literal  application  of  the  law 
in  such  cases ;  the  principle  is  applied  as  often  among 
ourselves,  in  the  exaction  from  an  offender  of  a 
pecuniary  satisfaction  proportioned  to  the  degree  of 
the  disability  he  has  inflicted  upon  his  neighbour. 
Finally,  as  regards  the  words  of  our  Saviour,  that  He 
did  not  intend  His  words  to  be  taken  in  their  utmost 
stretch  of  literality  in  all  cases,  is  plain  from  His  own 
conduct  when  smitten  by  the  order  of  the  high  priest 
(John  xviii.  23),  and  from  the  statement  that  the  magis- 
trate is  endowed  with  the  sword,  as  a  servant  of  God, 


xxiv.  1-23.]      THE  PENALTY  OF  BLASPHEMY.  4^5 


to  be  a  terror  to  evil-doers  (Rom.  xiii.  4) ;  from 
which  it  is  plain  that  Christ  did  not  mean  to  prohibit 
the  resort  to  judicial  process  under  all  circumstances, 
but  rather  the  spirit  of  retaliation  and  litigation  which 
sought  to  justify  itself  by  a  perverse  appeal  to  this  law 
of  **an  eye  for  eye;" — a  law  which,  in  point  of  fact, 
was  given,  as  Augustine  has  truly  observed,  not  "as 
an  incitement  to,  but  for  the  mitigation  of  wrath." 

The  narrative  then  ends  with  the  statement  (ver.  23) 
that  Moses  delivered  this  law  to  the  children  of  Israel, 
who  then,  according  to  the  commandment  of  the  Lord, 
took  the  blasphemer  out  of  the  camp,  when  all  that 
heard  him  blaspheme  laid  their  hands  upon  his  head, 
in  token  that  they  thus  devolved  on  him  the  responsi- 
bility for  his  own  death;  and  then  the  congregation 
stoned  the  criminal  with  stones  that  he  died  (ver.  23). 

The  chief  lesson  to  be  learned  from  this  incident  and 
from  the  law  here  given  is  very  plain.  It  is  the  high 
criminality  in  God's  sight  of  all  irreverent  use  of  His 
holy  name.  To  a  great  extent  in  earlier  days  this 
was  recognised  by  Christian  governments ;  and  in  the 
Middle  Ages  the  penalty  of  blasphemy  in  many  states 
of  Christendom,  as  in  the  Mosaic  code  and  in  many 
others,  although  not  death,  was  yet  exceedingly  severe. 
The  present  century,  however,  has  seen  a  great  relaxa- 
tion of  law,  and  still  more  of  public  sentiment,  in  regard 
to  this  crime, — a  change  which,  from  a  Christian  point 
of  view,  is  a  matter  for  anything  but  gratulation. 
Reverence  for  God  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  even 
common  morality.  Our  modern  atheism  and  agnosti- 
cism may  indeed  deny  this,  and  yet,  from  the  days  of 
the  French  Revolution  to  the  present,  modern  history 
has  been  presenting,  in  one  land  and  another,  illustra- 
tions of  the  fact  which  are  pregnant  with  most  solemn 


486  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

warning.  And  while  no  one  could  wish  that  the  crime 
of  blasphemy  should  be  punished  with  torture  and 
cruelty,  as  in  some  instances  in  the  Middle  Ages,  yet 
the  more  deeply  one  thinks  on  this  subject  in  the  light 
of  the  Scripture  and  of  history,  the  more,  if  we  mistake 
not,  will  it  appear  that  it  might  be  far  better  for  us, 
and  might  argue  a  far  more  hopeful  and  wholesome 
condition  of  the  public  sentiment  than  that  which  now 
exists,  if  still,  as  in  Mosaic  days  and  sometimes  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  death  were  made  the  punishment  for  this 
crime ; — a  crime  which  not  only  argues  the  extreme  of 
depravity  in  the  criminal,  but  which,  if  overlooked  by 
the  State,  or  expiated  with  any  light  penalty,  cannot 
but  operate  most  fatally  by  breaking  down  in  the  public 
conscience  that  profound  reverence  toward  God  which 
is  the  most  essential  condition  of  the  maintenance  of 
all  private  and  public  morality. 

In  this  point  of  view,  not  to  speak  of  other  considera- 
tions, it  is  not  surprising  that  the  theocratic  law  here 
provides  that  blasphemy  shall  be  punished  with  death 
in  the  case  of  the  foreigner  as  well  as  the  native 
Israelite.  This  sin,  like  those  of  murder  and  violence 
with  which  it  is  here  conjoined,  is  of  such  a  kind  that 
to  every  conscience  which  is  not  hopelessly  hardened, 
its  wickedness  must  be  manifest  even  from  the  very 
light  of  nature.  Nature  itself  is  sufficient  to  teach  any 
one  that  abuse  and  calumny  of  the  Supreme  God,  the 
Maker  and  Ruler  of  the  world, — a  Being  who,  if  He  exist 
at  all,  must  be  infinitely  good, — must  be  a  sin  involving 
quite  peculiar  and  exceptional  guilt.  Hence,  absolute 
equity,  no  less  than  governmental  wisdom,  demanded 
that  the  law  regarding  blasphemy,  as  that  with  respect 
to  the  other  crimes  here  mentioned,  should  be  impartially 
enforced  upon  both  the  native  Israelite  and  the  foreigner. 


CHAPTER    XXVI. 

THE  SABBATIC   YEAR  AND   THE  JUBILEE, 
Lev.  XXV.  1-55. 

THE  system  of  annually  recurring  sabbatic  times^ 
as  given  in  chap,  xxiii.,  culminated  in  the  sab- 
batic seventh  month.  But  this  remarkable  system  of 
sabbatisms  extended  still  further,  and,  besides  the  sacred 
seventh  day,  the  seventh  week,  and  seventh  month, 
included  also  a  sabbatic  seventh  year ;  and  beyond 
that,  as  the  ultimate  expression  of  the  sabbatic  idea, 
following  the  seventh  seven  of  years,  came  the 
hallowed  fiftieth  year,  known  as  the  jubilee.  And 
the  law  concerning  these  two  last-named  periods  is 
recorded  in  this  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Leviticus. 

First  (vv.  1-5),  is  given  the  ordinance  of  the  sabbatic 
seventh  year,  in  the  following  words :  '*  When  ye  come 
into  the  land  which  I  give  you,  then  shall  the  land 
keep  a  sabbath  unto  the  Lord.  Six  years  thou  shalt 
sow  thy  field,  and  six  years  thou  shalt  prune  thy  vine- 
yard, and  gather  in  the  fruits  thereof;  but  in  the 
seventh  year  shall  be  a  sabbath  of  solemn  rest  for  the 
land,  a  sabbath  unto  the  Lord  :  thou  shalt  neither  sow 
thy  field,  nor  prune  thy  vineyard.  That  which  groweth 
of  itself  of  thy  harvest  thou  shalt  not  reap,  and  the 
grapes  of  thy  undressed  vine  thou  shalt  not  gather :  it 
shall  be  a  year  of  solemn  rest  for  the  land." 


488  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

This  sacred  year  is  thus  here  described  as  a  sabbath 
for  the  land  unto  the  Lord, — a  shabbath  shabbathon; 
that  is,  a  sabbath  in  a  special  and  eminent  sense.  No 
public  religious  gatherings  were  ordered,  however, 
neither  was  labour  of  every  kind  prohibited.  It  was 
strictly  a  year  of  rest  for  the  land,  and  for  the  people 
in  so  far  as  this  was  involved  in  that  fact.  There  was 
to  be  no  sowing  or  reaping,  even  of  what  might  grow 
of  itself;  no  pruning  of  vineyard  or  fruit  trees,  nor 
gathering  of  their  fruit.  These  regulations  thus  in- 
volved the  total  suspension  of  agricultural  labour  for 
this  entire  period. 

It  was  further  ordered  (vv.  6,  7)  that  during  this 
year  the  spontaneous  produce  of  the  land  should  be 
equally  free  to  all,  both  man  and  beast :  "  The  sabbath 
of  the  land  shall  be  for  food  for  you  ;  for  thee,  and 
for  thy  servant  and  for  thy  maid,  and  for  thy  hired 
servant  and  for  thy  stranger  that  sojourn  with  thee ; 
and  for  thy  cattle,  and  for  the  beasts  that  are  in  thy 
land,  shall  all  the  increase  thereof  be  for  food." 

That  this  cannot  be  regarded  as  merely  a  regulation 
of  a  communistic  character,  designed  simply  to  affirm 
the  absolute  equality  of  all  men  in  right  to  the  product 
of  the  soil,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  beasts  also 
are  included  in  the  terms  of  the  law.  The  object  was 
quite  different,  as  we  shall  shortly  see. 

That  it  should  be  regarded  as  possible  for  a  whole 
people  thus  to  live  off  the  spontaneous  produce  of  self- 
sowed  grain  may  seem  incredible  to  us  who  dwell  in 
less  propitious  lands ;  and  yet  travellers  tell  us  that  in 
the  Palestine  of  to-day,  with  its  rich  soil  and  kindly 
climate,  the  various  food  grains  continuously  propagate 
themselves  without  cultivation  ;  and  that  in  Albania, 
also,  two  and  three  successive  harvests  are  sometimes 


XXV.I-55-]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  489 

reaped  as  the  result  of  one  sowing.  So,  even  apart 
from  the  special  blessing  from  the  Lord  promised  to 
them  if  they  would  obey  this  command,  the  supply  of  at 
least  the  necessities  of  life  was  possible  from  the  spon- 
taneous product  of  the  sabbath  of  the  land.  Though 
less  than  usual,  it  might  easily  be  sufficient.  In  Deut. 
XV.  i-ii  it  is  ordered  also  that  the  seventh  year  should 
be  "  a  year  of  release  "  to  the  debtor ;  not  indeed  as 
regards  all  debts,  but  loans  only ;  nor,  apparently,  that 
even  these  should  be  released  absolutely,  but  that 
throughout  the  seventh  year  the  claim  of  the  creditor 
was  to  be  in  abeyance.  The  regulation  may  naturally 
be  regarded  as  consequent  upon  this  fundamental  law 
regarding  the  sabbath  of  the  land.  The  income  of  the 
year  being  much  less  than  usual,  the  debtor,  pre- 
sumably, might  often  find  it  difficult  to  pay;  whence 
this  restriction  on  collection  of  debt  during  this  period. 
The  central  thought  of  this  ordinance  then  is  this, 
that  man's  right  in  the  soil  and  its  product,  originally 
granted  from  God,  during  this  sabbatic  year  reverted  to 
the  Giver ;  who,  again,  by  ordering  that  all  exclusive 
rights  of  individuals  in  the  produce  of  their  estates 
should  be  suspended  for  this  year,  placed,  for  so  long, 
the  rich  and  the  poor  on  an  absolute  equality  as 
regards  means  of  sustenance. 

The    Jubilee. 
XXV.  8-12. 

"  And  thou  shalt  number  seven  sabbaths  ot  years  unto  thee,  seven 
times  seven  years ;  and  there  shall  be  unto  thee  the  days  of  seven 
sabbaths  of  years,  even  forty  and  nine  years.  Then  shalt  thou  send 
abroad  the  loud  trumpet  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month ;  in 
the  day  of  atonement  shall  ye  send  abroad  the  trumpet  throughout 
all  your  land.  And  ye  shall  hallov^^  the  fiftieth  year,  and  proclaim 
liberty  throughout  the  land  unto  all  the  inhabitants  thereof:  it  shall 


490  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

be  a  jubilee  unto  you ;  and  ye  shall  return  every  man  unto  his 
possession,  and  ye  shall  return  every  man  unto  his  family.  A  jubilee 
shall  that  fiftieth  year  be  unto  you  :  ye  shall  not  sow,  neither  reap 
that  which  groweth  of  itself  in  it,  nor  gather  the  grapes  in  it  of  the 
undressed  vines.  For  it  is  a  jubilee ;  it  shall  be  holy  unto  you :  ye 
shall  eat  the  increase  thereof  out  of  the  field." 

The  remainder  of  this  chapter,  vv.  8-55,  is  occupied 
with  this  ordinance  of  the  jubilee  year  ;  an  observance 
absolutely  without  a  parallel  in  any  nation,  and  which 
has  to  do  with  the  solution  of  some  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult social  problems,  not  only  of  that  time,  but  also 
of  our  own.  Seven  weeks  of  years,  each  terminating 
with  the  sabbatic  year  of  solemn  rest  for  the  land, 
were  to  be  numbered,  ?>.,  forty-nine  full  years,  of 
which  the  last  was  a  sabbatic  year,  beginning,  as 
always,  with  the  feast  of  atonement  in  the  tenth  day  of 
the  seventh  month.  And  then  when,  at  its  expiration, 
the  day  of  atonement  came  round  again,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fiftieth  year  of  this  reckoning,  at  the  close, 
as  would  appear,  of  the  solemn  expiatory  ritual  of  the 
day,  throughout  all  the  land  of  Israel  the  loud  trumpet 
was  to  be  sounded,  proclaiming  "  liberty  throughout 
the  land  unto  all  the  inhabitants  thereof."  The  ordi- 
nance is  given  in  vv.  8-12  above. 

It  appears  that  the  liberty  thus  proclaimed  was 
threefold  :  (i)  liberty  to  the  man  who,  through  the  re- 
verses of  life,  had  become  dispossessed  from  his  family 
inheritance  in  the  land,  to  return  to  it  again ;  (2)  liberty 
to  every  Hebrew  slave,  so  that  in  the  jubilee  he  became 
a  free  man  again ;  (3)  the  liberty  of  release  from  toil  in 
the  cultivation  of  the  land, — a  feature,  in  this  case, 
even  more  remarkable  than  in  the  sabbatic  year,  be- 
cause already  one  such  sabbatic  year  had  but  just 
closed  when  the  jubilee  year  immediately  succeeded. 

Why  this  year  should  be  called  a  jubilee  (Heb.  yobel) 


XXV.  1-55.]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  491 

is  a  vexed  question,  on  which  scholars  are  far  from 
unanimous ;  but  as  it  is  of  no  practical  importance, 
there  is  no  need  to  enter  on  the  discussion  here.  To 
suppose  that  these  enactments  should  have  originated, 
as  the  radical  critics  claim,  in  post-exilian  days,  when, 
under  the  existing  social  and  political  conditions,  their 
observance  was  impossible,  is  utterly  absurd.^  Not 
only  so,  but  in  view  of  the  admitted  neglect  even 
of  the  sabbatic  year, — an  ordinance  certainly  less 
difficult  to  carry  out  in  practice, — during  four  hundred 
and  ninety  years  of  Israel's  history,  the  supposition 
that  the  law  of  the  jubilee  should  have  been  first 
promulgated  at  any  earlier  post-Mosaic  period  is 
scarcely  less  incredible. 

The  Jubilee  and  the  Land. 

XXV.  13-28. 

"In  this  year  of  jubilee  ye  shall  return  every  man  unto  his  possession. 
And  if  thou  sell  aught  unto  thy  neighbour,  or  buy  of  thy  neighbour's 
hand,  ye  shall  not  wrong  one  another  :  according  to  the  number  of 
years  after  the  jubiloe  thou  shalt  buy  of  thy  neighbour,  and  according 
unto  the  number  of  years  of  the  crops  he  shall  sell  unto  thee.  Accord- 
ing to  the  multitude  of  the  years  thou  shalt  increase  the  price  thereof, 
and  according  to  the  fewness  of  the  years  thou  shalt  diminish  the 
price  of  it ;  for  the  number  of  the  crops  doth  he  sell  unto  thee.  And 
ye  shall  not  wrong  one  another ;  but  thou  shalt  fear  thy  God  :  for  I 
am  the  Lord  your  God.  Wherefore  ye  shall  do  My  statutes,  and  keep 
My  judgments  and  do  them  ;  and  ye  shall  dwell  in  the  land  in  safety. 
And  the  land  shall  yield  her  fruit,  and  ye  shall  eat  your  fill,  and  dwell 

*  Thus  Dillmann  writes:  "That  the  law  (of  the  jubilee)  in  its 
principal  features  was  already  issued  by  Moses  does  not  admit  of 
demonstration  to  him  who  wills  not  to  believe  it ;  but  that  it  cannot 
have  been  in  the  first  instance  the  invention  of  a  post-exilian  scribe 
is  certain.  Only  in  the  simpler  communal  relations  of  the  more 
ancient  time  could  a  law  of  such  an  ideal  character  have  seemed 
practicable;  after  the  exile,  all  the  presuppositions  involved  in  its 
promulgation  are  wianting"  ("Die  Biicher  Exodus  and  Leviticus,"  2 
Aufl.,  p.  608). 


492  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

therein  in  safety.  And  if  ye  shall  say,  What  shall  we  eat  the  seventh 
year  ?  behold,  we  shall  not  sow,  nor  gather  in  our  increase :  then  1 
will  command  My  blessing  upon  you  in  the  sixth  year,  and  it  shall 
bring  forth  fruit  for  the  three  years.  And  ye  shall  sow  the  eighth 
year,  and  eat  of  the  fruits,  the  old  store;  until  the  ninth  year,  until 
her  fruits  come  in,  ye  shall  eat  the  old  store.  And  the  land  shall  not 
be  sold  in  perpetuitj' ;  for  the  land  is  Mine  :  for  ye  are  strangers  and 
sojourners  with  Me.  And  in  all  the  land  of  your  possession  ye  shall 
grant  a  redemption  for  the  land.  If  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor,  and 
sell  some  of  his  possession,  then  shall  his  kinsman  that  is  next  unto 
him  come,  and  shall  redeem  that  which  his  brother  hath  sold.  And 
if  a  man  have  no  one  to  redeem  it,  and  he  be  waxen  rich  and  find 
sufficient  to  redeem  it;  then  let  him  count  the  years  of  the  sale  thereof, 
and  restore  the  overplus  unto  the  man  to  whom  he  sold  it ;  and  he 
shall  return  unto  his  possession.  But  if  he  be  not  able  to  get  it  back 
for  himself,  then  that  which  he  hath  sold  shall  remain  in  the  hand 
of  him  that  hath  bought  it  until  the  year  of  jubilee  :  and  in  the  jubilee 
it  shall  go  out,  and  he  shall  return  unto  his  possession." 

The  remainder  of  the  chapter  (w.  13-55)  deals  with 
the  practical  application  of  this  law  of  the  jubilee  to 
various  cases.  In  vv.  13-28  we  have  the  application 
of  the  law  to  the  case  of  property  in  land;  in  vv.  29-34, 
to  sales  of  dwelling  houses;  and  the  remaining  verses 
(35-55)  deal  with  the  application  of  this  law  to  the 
institution  oi  slavery. 

As  regards  the  first  matter,  the  transfers  of  right  in 
land,  these  in  all  cases  were  to  be  governed  by  the 
fundamental  principle  enounced  in  ver.  23  :  "  The  land 
shall  not  be  sold  in  perpetuity  ;  for  the  land  is  Mine : 
for  ye  are  strangers  and  sojourners  with  Me." 

Thus  in  the  theocracy  there  was  no  such  thing  as 
either  private  or  communal  ownership  in  land.  Just  as 
in  some  lands  to-day  the  only  owner  of  the  land  is  the 
king,  so  it  was  in  Israel ;  but  in  this  case  the  King  was 
Jehovah.  From  this  it  follows,  evidently,  that  properly 
speaking,  according  to  this  law,  there  could  be  no  such 
thing  in  Israel  as  a  sale  or  purchase  of  land.     All  that 


XXV.  1-55-]    THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  493 

any  man  could  buy  or  sell  was  the  right  to  its  products, 
and  that,  again,  only  for  a  limited  time  ;  for  every  fiftieth 
year  the  land  was  to  revert  to  the  family  to  whom  its 
use  had  been  originally  assigned.  Hence  the  regula- 
tions (vv.  14-19)  regarding  such  transfers  of  the  right  to 
the  use  of  the  land.  They  are  all  governed  by  the  simple 
and  equitable  principle  that  the  price  paid  for  the  usu- 
fruct of  the  land  was  to  be  exactly  proportioned  to  the 
number  of  years  which  were  to  elapse  between  the 
date  of  the  sale  and  the  reversion  of  the  land,  which 
would  take  place  in  the  jubilee.  Thus,  the  price  for  such 
transfer  of  right  in  the  first  year  of  the  jubilee  period 
would  be  at  its  maximum,  because  the  sale  covered  the 
right  to  the  produce  of  the  land  for  forty-nine  years ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  case  of  a  transfer 
made  in  the  forty-eighth  year,  the  price  would  have 
fallen  to  a  very  small  amount,  as  only  the  product  of 
one  year's  cultivation  remained  to  be  sold,  and  after 
the  ensuing  sabbatic  year  the  land  would  revert  in  the 
jubilee  to  the  original  holder.  The  command  to  keep 
in  mind  this  principle,  and  not  wrong  one  another,  is 
enforced  (vv.  17-19)  by  the  injunction  to  do  this  because 
of  the  fear  of  God ;  and  by  the  promise  that  if  Israel 
will  obey  this  law,  they  shall  dwell  in  safety,  and  have 
abundance. 

In  vv.  24-28,  after  the  declaration  of  the  fundamental 
law  that  the  land  belongs  only  to  the  Lord,  and  that 
they  are  to  regard  themselves  as  simply  His  tenants, 
'^sojourners  with  Him,"  a  second  application  of  the 
law  is  made.  First,  it  is  ordered  that  in  every  case, 
and  without  reference  to  the  year  of  jubilee,  every 
landholder  who  through  stress  of  poverty  may  be 
obliged  to  sell  the  usufruct  of  his  land  shall  retain  the 
right  to  redeem  it.     Three  cases  are  assumed.     First 


494  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

(ver.  25),  it  is  ordered  that  if  the  poor  man  have  lost 
his  land,  and  have  a  kinsman  who  is  able  to  redeem 
it,  he  shall  do  so.  Secondly  (ver.  26),  if  he  have  no 
such  kinsman,  but  himself  become  able  to  redeem  it, 
it  shall  be  his  privilege  to  do  so.  In  both  cases  alike, 
'*  the  overplus,"  i.e.,  the  valne  of  the  land  for  the  years 
still  remaining  till  the  jubilee,  for  which  the  purchaser 
had  paid,  is  to  be  restored  to  him,  and  then  the  land 
reverts  at  once,  without  waiting  for  the  jubilee,  to  the 
original  proprietor.  The  third  case  (ver.  28)  is  that  of 
the  poor  man  who  has  no  kinsman  to  buy  back  his 
landholding,  and  never  becomes  able  to  do  so  himself. 
In  such  a  case,  the  purchaser  was  to  hold  it  until  the 
jubilee  year,  when  the  land  reverted  without  com- 
pensation to  the  family  of  the  poor  man  who  had 
transferred  it.  That  this  was  strictly  equitable  is 
self-evident,  when  we  remember  that,  according  to 
the  law  previously  laid  down,  the  purchaser  had  only 
paid  for  the  value  of  the  product  of  the  land  until  the 
jubilee  year ;  and  when  he  had  received  its  produce 
for  that  time,  naturally  and  in  strict  equity  his  right 
in  the  land  terminated. 

The  Jubilee  and  Dwelling  Houses. 

XXV.  29-34. 

"  And  if  a  man  sell  a  dwelling  house  in  a  walled  city,  then  he  may 
redeem  it  within  a  whole  year  after  it  is  sold  ;  for  a  full  year  shall  he 
have  the  right  of  redemption.  And  if  it  be  not  redeemed  within  the 
space  of  a  full  year,  then  the  house  that  is  in  the  walled  city  shall  be 
made  sure  in  perpetuity  to  him  that  bought  it,  throughout  his  genera- 
tions :  it  shall  not  go  out  in  the  jubilee.  But  the  houses  of  the  villages 
which  have  no  wall  round  about  them  shall  be  reckoned  with  the 
fields  of  the  country  :  they  may  be  redeemed,  and  they  shall  go  out 
in  the  jubilee.  Nevertheless  the  cities  of  the  Levites,  the  houses  of  the 
cities  of  their  possession,  may  the  Levites  redeem  at  any  time.  And 
if  one  of  the  Levites  redeem  [not],  then  the  house  that  was  sold,  and  the 


XXV.  1-55.]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  495 

city  of  bis  possession,  shall  go  out  in  the  jubilee  ;  for  the  houses  of  the 
cities  of  the  Levites  are  their  possession  among  the  children  of  Israel, 
But  the  field  of  the  suburbs  of  their  cities  may  not  be  sold ;  for  it  is 
their  perpetual  possession." 

In  vv.  29-34  is  considered  the  application  of  the 
jubilee  ordinance  to  the  sale  of  dwelling  houses  :  first 
(vv.  29-31),  to  such  sale  in  case  of  the  people  generally ; 
secondly  (vv.  32-34),  to  sales  of  houses  by  the  Levites. 
Under  the  former  head  we  have  first  the  law  as  regards 
sales  of  dwelling  houses  in  ^'  walled  cities  ;  "  to  which 
it  is  ordered  that  the  law  of  reversion  in  the  jubilee  shall 
not  apply,  and  for  which  the  right  of  redemption  was 
only  to  hold  valid  for  one  year.  The  obvious  reason 
for  exempting  houses  in  cities  from  the  law  of  rever- 
sion is  that  the  law  has  to  do  only  with  land  such  as 
may  be  used  in  a  pastoral  or  agricultural  way  for  man's 
support.  And  this  explains  why,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  next  ordered  (ver.  31)  that  in  the  case  of  houses 
in  unwalled  villages  the  law  of  redemption  and  rever- 
sion in  the  jubilee  shall  apply  as  well  as  to  the  land. 
For  the  inhabitants  of  the  villages  were  the  herdsmen 
and  cultivators  of  the  soil ;  and  the  house  was  regarded 
rightly  as  a  necessary  attachment  to  the  land,  without 
which  its  use  would  not  be  possible.  But  inasmuch  as 
God  had  assigned  no  landholding  to  the  Levites  in  the 
original  distribution  of  the  land, — and  apart  from  their 
houses  they  had  no  possession  (ver.  33), — in  order  to 
secure  them  in  the  privilege  of  a  permanent  holding,  such 
as  others  enjoyed  in  their  lands,  it  was  ordered  that  in 
their  case  their  houses,  as  being  their  only  possession 
in  real  estate,  should  be  treated  as  were  the  landholdings 
of  members  of  the  other  tribes.^ 

^  The  interpretation  of  ver.  ^^  presents  a  difficulty  which,  if  the 
rendering  retained  in  the  text  by  the  Revisers  be  accepted,  is  hard  to 


496  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

The  relation  of  the  jubilee  law  to  personal  rights  in 
the  land  having  been  thus  determined  and  expounded, 
in  the  next  place  (w.  35-55)  is  considered  the  applica- 
tion of  the  law  to  slavery.  Quite  naturally,  this  section 
begins  (vv.  35-37)  with  a  general  injunction  to  assist 
and  deal  mercifully  with  any  brother  who  has  become 
poor.  *^  If  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor,  and  his  hand 
fail  with  thee ;  then  thou  shalt  uphold  him :  as  a 
stranger  and  a  sojourner  shall  he  live  with  thee.  Take 
thou  no  usury  of  him  or  increase ;  but  fear  thy  God  : 
that  thy  brother  may  live  with  thee.  Thou  shalt  not 
give  him  thy  money  upon  usury,  nor  give  him  thy 
victuals  for  increase." 

The  evident  object  of  this  law  is  to  prevent,  as  far 
as  possible,  that  extreme  of  poverty  which  might  compel 
a  man  to  sell  himself  in  order  to  live.  Debt  is  a  burden 
in  any  case,  to  a  poor  man  especially  ;  but  debt  is  the 
heavier  burden  when  to  the  original  debt  is  added 
the  constant  payment  of  interest.  Hence,  not  merely 
^' usury"  in  the  modern  sense  of  excessive  interest,  but 
it  is  forbidden  to  claim  or  take  any  interest  whatever 
from  any  Hebrew  debtor.  On  the  same  principle,  it  is 
forbidden  to  take  increase  for  food  which  may  be  lent  to 
a  poor  brother ;  as  when  one  lets  a  man  have  twenty 
bushels  of  wheat  on  condition  that  in  due  time  he  shall 
return  for  it  twenty-two.  This  command  is  enforced 
(ver.  38)  by  reminding  them  from  whom  they  have 
received  what  they  have,  and  on  what  easy  terms,  as 
a  gift ;  from  their  covenant  God,  who  is  Himself  their 

resolve.  But  if  we  assume  that  a  negative  has  fallen  out  of  the  first 
clause  in  the  received  text,  and  read  with  the  Vulgate,  as  given  in  the 
margin  of  the  Revised  Version,  "  if  one  of  the  Levites  redeem  not"  all 
becomes  clear.  In  the  exposition  we  have  ventured  to  assume  in  this 
instance  the  correctness  of  the  Vulgate, 


XXV.  1-55-]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  497 

security  that  by  so  doing  they  shall  not  lose  :  "  I  am 
the  Lord  your  God,  which  brought  you  forth  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  to  give  you  the  land  of  Canaan,  to  be 
your  God."  They  need  not  therefore  have  recourse  to 
the  exaction  of  interest  and  increase  from  their  poor 
brethren  in  order  to  make  a  living,  but  are  to  be 
merciful,  even  as  Jehovah  their  God  is  merciful. 

The  Jubilee  and  Slavery. 

XXV.  39-55. 

"  And  if  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor  with  thee,  and  sell  himself 
unto  thee ;  thou  shalt  not  make  him  to  serve  as  a  bondservant :  as 
an  hired  servant,  and  as  a  sojourner,  he  shall  be  with  thee  ;  he  shall 
serve  with  thee  unto  the  year  of  jubilee  :  then  shall  he  go  out  from 
thee,  he  and  his  children  with  him,  and  shall  return  unto  his  own 
family,  and  unto  the  possession  of  his  fathers  shall  he  return.  For 
they  are  My  servants,  which  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt :  they  shall  not  be  sold  as  bondmen.  Thou  shalt  not  rule 
over  him  with  rigour;  but  shalt  fear  thy  God.  And  as  for  thy 
bondmen,  and  thy  bondmaids,  which  thou  shalt  have ;  of  the  nations 
that  are  round  about  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy  bondmen  and  bond- 
maids. Moreover  of  the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn 
among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their  families  that  are  with 
you,  which  they  have  begotten  in  your  land  :  and  they  shall  be  your 
possession.  And  ye  shall  make  them  an  inheritance  for  your 
children  after  you,  to  hold  for  a  possession ;  of  them  shall  ye  take 
your  bondmen  for  ever :  but  over  your  brethren  the  children  of 
Israel  ye  shall  not  rule,  one  over  another,  with  rigour.  And  if  a 
stranger  or  sojourner  with  thee  be  waxen  rich,  and  thy  brother 
be  waxen  poor  beside  him,  and  sell  himself  unto  the  stranger  or 
sojourner  with  thee,  or  to  the  stock  of  the  stranger's  family :  after 
that  he  is  sold  he  may  be  redeemed ;  one  of  his  brethren  may 
redeem  him :  or  his  uncle,  or  his  uncle's  son,  may  redeem  him,  or 
any  that  is  nigh  of  kin  unto  him  of  his  family  may  redeem  him ;  or 
if  he  be  waxen  rich,  he  may  redeem  himself.  And  he  shall  reckon 
with  him  that  bought  him  from  the  year  that  he  sold  himself  to  him 
unto  the  year  of  jubilee  :  and  the  price  of  his  sale  shall  be  according 
unto  the  number  of  years  ;  according  to  the  time  of  an  hired  servant 
shall  he  be  with  him.  If  there  be  yet  many  years,  according  unto 
them  he  shall  give  back  the  price  of  his  redemption  out  of  the  money 

32 


498  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

that  he  was  bought  for.  And  if  there  remain  but  few  years  unto  the 
year  of  jubilee,  then  he  shall  reckon  with  him  ;  according  unto  his 
years  shall  he  give  back  the  price  of  his  redemption.  As  a  servant 
hired  year  by  year  shall  he  be  with  him  :  he  shall  not  rule  with 
rigour  over  him  in  thy  sight.  And  if  he  be  not  redeemed  by  these 
means,  then  he  shall  go  out  in  the  year  of  jubilee,  he,  and  his  children 
with  him.  For  unto  Me  the  children  of  Israel  are  servants ;  they  are 
My  servants  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  :  I  am  the 
Lord  your  God." 

Even  with  the  burdensomeness  of  debt  lightened 
as  above,  it  was  yet  possible  that  a  man  might  be 
reduced  to  poverty  so  extreme  that  he  should  feel 
compelled  to  sell  himself  as  a  slave.  Hence  arises 
the  question  of  slavery,  and  its  relation  to  the  law  of 
the  jubilee.  Under  this  head  two  cases  were  possible  : 
the  first,  where  a  man  had  sold  himself  to  a  fellow- 
Hebrew  (vv.  39-46) ;  the  second,  where  a  man  had 
sold  himself  to  a  foreigner  resident  in  the  land  (vv. 

47-55). 

With  the  Hebrews  and  all  the  neighbouring  peoples, 

slavery  was,  and  had  been  from  of  old,  a  settled  insti- 
tution. Regarded  simply  as  an  abstract  question  of 
morals,  it  might  seem  as  if  the  Lord  might  once  for 
all  have  abolished  it  by  an  absolute  prohibition  ;  after 
the  manner  in  which  many  modern  reformers  would 
deal  with  such  evils  as  the  liquor  traffic,  etc.  But  the 
Lord  was  wiser  than  many  such.  As  has  been  remarked 
already,  in  connection  with  the  question  of  concubinage, 
that  law  is  not  in  every  case  the  best  which  may  be 
the  best  intrinsically  and  ideally.  That  law  is  the 
best  which  can  be  best  enforced  in  the  actual  moral 
status  of  the  people,  and  consequent  condition  of  public 
opinion.  So  the  Lord  did  not  at  once  prohibit  slavery ; 
but  He  ordained  laws  which  would  restrict  it,  and  modify 
and   ameliorate  the   condition    of  the   slave  wherever 


XXV.  1-55.]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  499 

slavery  was  permitted  to  exist ;  laws,  moreover,  which 
have  had  such  an  educational  power  as  to  have  banished 
slavery  from  the  Hebrew  people. 

In  the  first  place,  slavery,  in  the  unqualified  sense 
of  the  word,  is  allowed  only  in  the  case  of  non- 
Israelites.  That  it  was  permitted  to  hold  these  as 
bondmen  is  explicitly  declared  (vv.  44-46).  It  is, 
however,  important,  in  order  to  form  a  correct  idea 
of  Hebrew  slavery,  to  observe  that,  according  to  Exod. 
xxi.  16,  man-stealing  was  made  a  capital  offence;  and 
the  law  also  carefully  guarded  from  violence  and  tyranny 
on  the  part  of  the  master  the  non-Israelite  slave  law- 
fully gotten,  even  decreeing  his  emancipation  from  his 
master  in  extreme  cases  of  this  kind  (Exod.  xxi.  20,  21, 
26,  27). 

With  regard  to  the  Hebrew  bondman,  the  law 
recognises  no  property  of  the  master  in  his  person  ; 
that  a  servant  of  Jehovah  should  be  a  slave  of  another 
servant  of  Jehovah  is  denied ;  because  they  are  His 
servants,  no  other  can  own  them  (vv.  42,  55).  Thus, 
while  the  case  is  supposed  (ver.  39)  that  a  man  through 
stress  of  poverty  may  sell  himself  to  a  fellow-Hebrew 
as  a  bondservant,  the  sale  is  held  as  affecting  only  the 
master's  right  to  his  service,  but  not  to  his  person. 
^'  Thou  shalt  not  make  him  to  serve  as  a  bondservant : 
as  an  hired  servant,  and  as  a  sojourner,  he  shall  be  with 
thee." 

Further,  it  is  elsewhere  provided  (Exod.  xxi.  2)  that 
in  no  case  shall  such  sale  hold  valid  for  a  longer  time 
than  six  years;  in  the  seventh  year  the  man  was  to 
have  the  privilege  of  going  out  free  for  nothing.  And 
in  this  chapter  is  added  a  further  alleviation  of  the 
bondage  (vv.  40,  41)  :  "  He  shall  serve  with  thee  unto 
the  year  of  jubilee  :  then  shall  he  go  out  from  thee, 


500  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

he  and  his  children  with  him,  and  shall  return  unto 
his  own  family,  and  unto  the  possession  of  his  fathers 
shall  he  return.  For  they  are  My  servants,  which  I 
brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt :  they  shall  not 
be  sold  as  bondmen." 

That  is,  if  it  so  happened  that  before  the  six  years 
of  his  prescribed  service  had  been  completed  the  jubilee 
year  came  in,  he  was  to  be  exempted  from  the  obliga- 
tion to  service  for  the  remainder  of  that  period. 

The  remaining  verses  of  this  part  of  the  law  (w. 
44-46)  provide  that  the  Israelite  may  take  to  himself 
bondmen  of  '*  the  children  of  the  strangers  "  that  sojourn 
among  them ;  and  that  to  such  the  law  of  the  periodic 
release  shall  not  be  held  to  apply.  Such  are  ^^  bondmen 
for  ever."  '*Ye  shall  make  them  an  inheritance  for 
your  children  after  you,  to  hold  for  a  possession ;  of 
them  shall  ye  take  your  bondmen  for  ever." 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  even  in  such  cases 
the  law  which  commanded  the  kind  treatment  of  all  the 
strangers  in  the  land  (xix.  33,  34)  would  apply;  so 
that  even  where  permanent  slavery  was  allowed  it 
was  placed  under  humanising  restriction. 

In  vv.  47-55  is  taken  up,  finally,  the  case  where 
a  poor  Israelite  should  have  sold  himself  as  a  slave 
to  a  foreigner  resident  in  the  land.  In  all  such  cases 
it  is  ordered  that  the  owner  of  the  man  must  recognise 
the  right  of  redemption.  That  is,  it  was  the  privilege 
of  the  man  himself,  or  of  any  of  his  near  kindred,  to 
buy  him  out  of  bondage.  Compensation  to  the  owner 
is,  however,  enjoined  in  such  cases  according  to  the 
number  of  the  years  remaining  to  the  next  jubilee,  at 
which  time  he  would  be  obliged  to  release  him  (ver.  54), 
whether  redeemed  or  not.  Thus  we  read  (vv.  50-52) : 
"  He  shall  reckon  with  him  that  bought  him  from  the 


XXV.  1-55]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.   501 

year  that  he  sold  himself  to  him  unto  the  year  of  jubilee  : 
and  the  price  of  his  sale  shall  be  according  unto  the 
number  of  years ;  according  to  the  time  of  an  hired 
servant  shall  he  be  with  him.  If  there  be  yet  many 
years,  according  unto  them  he  shall  give  back  the  price 
of  his  redemption  out  of  the  money  that  he  was  bought 
for.  And  if  there  remain  but  few  years  unto  the  year 
of  jubilee,  then  he  shall  reckon  with  him  ;  according  unto 
his  years  shall  he  give  back  the  price  of  his  redemption. 
As  a  servant  hired  year  by  year  shall  he  be  with  him." 

Furthermore,  it  is  commanded  (ver.  53)  that  the 
owner  of  the  Israelite,  for  so  long  time  as  he  may 
remain  in  bondage,  shall  ''not  rule  over  him  with 
rigour ; "  and  by  the  addition  of  the  words  "  in  thy 
sight  "  it  is  intimated  that  God  would  hold  the  collective 
nation  responsible  for  seeing  that  no  oppression  was 
exercised  by  any  alien  over  any  of  their  enslaved 
brethren.  To  which  it  should  also  be  added,  finally, 
that  the  regulations  for  the  release  of  the  slave  care- 
fully provided  for  the  maintenance  of  the  family  relation. 
Families  were  not  to  be  parted  in  the  emancipation  of 
the  jubilee ;  the  man  who  went  out  free  was  to  take  his 
children  with  him  (vv.  41,  54).  In  the  case,  however, 
where  the  wife  had  been  given  him  by  his  master,  she 
and  her  children  remained  in  bondage  after  his  eman- 
cipation in  the  seventh  year ;  but  of  course  only  until 
she  had  reached  her  seventh  year  of  service.  But  if 
the  slave  already  had  his  wife  when  he  became  a  slave, 
then  she  and  their  children  went  out  with  him  in  the 
seventh  year  (Exod.  xxi.  3,  4).  The  contrast  in  the  spirit 
of  these  laws  with  that  of  the  institution  of  slavery  as 
it  formerly  existed  in  the  Southern  States  of  America 
and  elsewhere  in  Christendom,  is  obvious. 

These,  then,  were  the  regulations  connected  with  the 


502  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

application  of  the  ordinance  of  the  jubilee  year  to  rights 
of  property,  whether  in  real  estate  or  in  slaves.  Ir 
respect  to  the  cessation  from  the  cultivation  of  the  soil 
which  was  enjoined  for  the  year,  the  law  was  essentially 
the  same  as  that  for  the  sabbatic  year,  except  that, 
apparently,  the  right  of  property  in  the  spontaneous 
produce  of  the  land,  which  was  in  abeyance  in  the 
former  case,  was  in  so  far  recognised  in  the  latter  that 
each  man  was  allowed  to  **  eat  the  increase  of  the  jubilee 
year  out  of  the  field  "  (ver.  12). 

Practical   Objects   of   the   Sabbatic   Year  and 
Jubilee   Law. 

Such  was  this  extraordinary  legislation,  the  like 
of  which  will  be  sought  in  vain  in  any  other  people. 
It  is  indeed  true  that,  in  some  instances,  ancient  law- 
givers decreed  that  land  should  not  be  permanently 
alienated,  or  that  individuals  should  not  hold  more 
than  a  certain  amount  of  land.  Thus,  for  example,  the 
Lacedemonians  were  forbidden  to  sell  their  lands,  and 
the  Dalmatians  were  wont  to  redistribute  their  lands 
every  eight  years.  But  laws  such  as  these  only  pre- 
sent accidental  coincidences  with  single  features  of  the 
jubilee  year ;  an  agreement  to  be  accounted  for  by  the 
fact  that  the  aim  of  such  lawgivers  was,  in  so  far,  the 
same  as  that  of  the  Hebrew  code,  that  they  sought  thus 
to  guard  against  excessive  accumulations  of  property 
in  the  hands  of  individuals,  and  those  consequent  great 
inequalities  in  the  distribution  of  wealth  which,  in  all 
lands  and  ages,  and  never  more  clearly  than  in  our 
own,  have  been  seen  to  be  fraught  with  the  gravest 
dangers  to  the  highest  interests  of  society.  Beyond 
this  single  point  we  shall  search  in  vain  the  history  of 


XXV.  1-55]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  503 

any  other  people  for  an  analogy  to  these  laws  concerning 
the  sabbatic  and  the  jubilee  year. 

What  was  the  immediate  object  of  this  remarkable 
legislation  ?  It  is  not  irrelevant  to  observe  that  in  so 
far  as  regards  the  prescription  of  a  periodic  rest  to  the 
land,  agricultural  science  recognises  that  this  is  an 
advantage,  especially  in  places  where  it  may  be  difficult 
to  obtain  fertilisers  for  the  soil  in  adequate  amount.  But 
it  cannot  be  supposed  that  this  was  the  chief  object  of 
these  ordinances,  not  even  in  so  far  as  they  had  respect 
to  the  land.  We  shall  not  err  in  regarding  them  as 
intended,  like  all  in  the  Levitical  system,  to  make  Israel 
to  be  in  reality,  what  they  were  called  to  be,  a  people 
holy,  i.e. J  fully  consecrated  to  the  Lord.  The  bearing 
of  these  laws  on  this  end  is  not  hard  to  perceive. 

In  the  first  place,  the  law  of  the  sabbatic  year  and 
the  jubilee  was  a  most  impressive  lesson  as  to  the  rela- 
tion of  God  to  what  men  call  their  property  ;  and,  in 
particular,  as  to  His  relation  to  man's  property  in  land. 
By  these  ordinances  every  Israelite  was  to  be  reminded 
in  a  most  impressive  way  that  the  land  which  he  tilled, 
or  on  which  he  fed  his  flocks  and  herds,  belonged,  not 
to  himself,  but  to  God.     Just  as  God  taught  him  that 
his  time  belonged  to  Him,  by  putting  in  a  claim  for  the 
absolute  consecration  to  Himself  of  every  seventh  day, 
so  here  He  reminded  Israel  that  the  land  belonged  to 
Him,  by  asserting  a  similar  claim  on  the  land  every 
seventh  year,  and   twice   in  a  century  for  two   years 
in  succession. 

No  one  will  pretend  that  the  law  of  the  sabbatic  year 
or  the  jubilee  is  binding  on  communities  now.  But  it 
is  a  question  for  our  times  as  to  whether  the  basal 
principle  regarding  the  relation  of  God  to  land,  and 
by  necessary  consequence  the  right  of  man  regarding 


504  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


land,  which  is  fundamental  to  these  laws,  is  not  in  its 
very  nature  of  perpetual  force.  Surely,  there  is  nothing 
in  Scripture  to  suggest  that  God's  ownership  of  the 
land  was  limited  to  the  land  of  Palestine,  or  to  that 
land  only  during  Israel's  occupancy  of  it.  Instead  of 
this,  Jehovah  everywhere  represents  Himself  as  having 
given  the  land  to  Israel,  and  therefore  by  necessary 
implication  as  having  a  like  right  over  it  while  as 
yet  the  Canaanites  were  dwelling  in  it.  Again,  the 
purpose  of  God's  dealing  with  Egypt  is  said  to  be 
that  Pharaoh  might  know  this  same  truth  :  that  the 
earth  (or  land)  was  the  Lord's  (Exod.  ix.  29);  and  in 
Psalm  xxiv.  I  it  is  stated,  as  a  broad  truth,  without 
qualification  or  restriction,  that  the  earth  is  the  Lord's, 
as  well  as  that  which  fills  it.  It  is  true  that  there  is 
no  suggestion  in  any  of  these  passages  that  the  relation 
of  God  to  the  earth  or  to  the  land  is  different  from 
His  relation  to  other  property  ;  but  it  is  intended  to 
emphasise  the  fact  that  in  the  use  of  land,  as  of  all  else, 
we  are  to  regard  ourselves  as  God's  stewards,  and  hold 
and  use  it  as  in  trust  from  Him. 

The  vital  relation  of  this  great  truth  to  the  burning 
questions  of  our  day  regarding  the  rights  of  men  in 
land  is  self-evident.  It  does  not  indeed  determine 
how  the  land  question  should  be  dealt  with  in  any 
particular  country,  but  it  does  settle  it  that  if  in  these 
matters  we  will  act  in  the  fear  of  God,  we  must  keep 
this  principle  steadily  before  us,  that,  primarily,  the  land 
belongs  to  the  Lord,  and  is  to  be  used  accordingly. 
How,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  God  did  order  that  the  land 
should  be  used,  in  the  only  instance  when  He  has  con- 
descended Himself  to  order  the  political  government 
of  a  nation,  we  have  already  seen,  and  shall  presently 
consider  more  fully. 


XXV.  1-55]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  505 

It  is  obvious  that  the  natural  and  therefore  intended 
effect  of  these  regulations,  if  obeyed,  would  have  been 
to  impose  a  constant  and  powerful  check  upon  man's 
natural  covetousness  and  greed  of  gain.  Every  seventh 
year  the  Hebrew  was  to  pause  in  his  toil  for  wealth, 
and  for  one  whole  year  he  was  to  waive  even  his 
ordinary  right  to  the  spontaneous  produce  of  his  fields ; 
which  year  of  abstinence  from  sowing  and  reaping  once 
in  fifty  years  was  doubled.  Add  to  this  the  strict  pro- 
hibition of  lending  money  upon  interest  to  a  fellow- 
Israelite,  and  we  can  see  how  far-reaching  and  effec- 
tive, if  obeyed,  were  such  regulations  likely  to  be  in 
restraining  that,  insatiate  greed  for  riches  which  ever 
grows  the  more  by  that  which  feeds  it. 

Yet  again  ;  the  law  of  the  sabbatic  year  and  the 
jubilee  was  adapted  to  serve  also  as  a  singularly  power- 
ful discipline  in  that  faith  toward  God  which  is  the  soul 
of  all  true  religion.  In  this  practical  way  every  Hebrew 
was  to  be  taught  that  *'  man  doth  not  live  by  bread 
alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the 
mouth  of  God."  The  lesson  is  ever  hard  to  learn, 
though  none  the  less  necessary.  This  thought  is 
alluded  to  in  ver.  20,  where  it  is  supposed  that  a  man 
might  raise  the  very  natural  objection  to  these  laws, 
"  What  shall  we  eat  the  seventh  year  ?  "  To  which 
the  answer  is  given,  with  reference  even  to  the  extreme 
case  of  the  jubilee  year  :  "  I  will  command  My  blessing 
upon  you  in  the  sixth  year,  and  it  shall  bring  forth 
fruit  for  the  three  years ;  until  the  ninth  year  ...  ye 
shall  eat  the  old  store." 

But  probably  the  most  prominent  and  important 
object  of  the  regulations  in  this  chapter  was  to  secure, 
as  far  as  possible,  the  equal  distribution  of  wealth,  by 
preventing  excessive  accumulations  either  of  land  or  of 


5o6  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

capital  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  while  the  mass  should  be 
sunk  in  poverty.  It  is  certain  that  these  laws,  if  carried 
out,  would  have  had  a  marvellous  effect  in  this  respect. 
As  for  capital,  we  all  know  what  an  important  factor  in 
the  production  of  wealth  is  accumulation  by  interest 
on  loans,  especially  when  the  interest  is  constantly 
compounded.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  its  immense 
power  as  an  instrument  for  at  once  enriching  the  lender 
and  in  proportion  impoverishing  the  borrower.  But 
among  the  Israelites,  to  receive  interest  or  its  equivalent 
was  prohibited.  One  other  chief  cause  of  the  excessive 
wealth  of  individuals  among  us,  as  in  all  ages,  is  the 
acquirement  in  perpetuity  by  individuals  of  a  dispro- 
portionate amount  of  the  public  land.  The  condition 
of  things  in  the  United  Kingdom  is  familiar  to  all,  with 
its  inevitable  effect  on  the  condition  of  large  masses  of 
people ;  and  in  parts  of  the  United  States  there  are 
indications  of  a  like  tendency  working  toward  the  similar 
disadvantage  of  many  small  landholders  and  cultivators. 
But  in  Israel,  if  these  laws  should  be  carried  into  efifect, 
such  a  state  of  things,  so  often  witnessed  among  other 
nations,  was  made  for  ever  impossible.  Individual 
ownership  in  the  land  itself  was  forbidden;  no  man 
was  allowed  more  than  a  leasehold  right ;  nor  could  he, 
even  by  adding  largely  to  his  leaseholds,  increase  his 
wealth  indefinitely,  so  as  to  transmit  a  fortune  to  his 
children,  to  be  still  further  augmented  by  a  similar 
process  in  the  next  and  succeeding  generations  ;  for 
every  fifty  years  the  jubilee  came  around,  and  whatever 
leaseholds  he  might  have  acquired  from  less  fortunate 
brethren,  reverted  unconditionally  to  the  original  owner 
or  his  legal  heirs. 

However  impracticable  such  arrangements  may  seem 
to  us  under  the  conditions  of  modern  life,  yet  it  must 


XXV.  1-55-]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  507 


be  confessed  that  in  the  case  of  a  nation  just  starting 
on  its  career  in  a  new  country,  as  was  Israel  at  that 
time,  nothing  could  well  be  thought  of  more  likely  to 
be  effective  toward  securing,  along  with  careful  regard 
to  the  rights  of  property,  an  equal  distribution  of  wealth 
among  the  people,  than  the  legislation  which  is  placed 
before  us  in  this  chapter. 

It  deserves  to  be  specially  noticed  by  how  exact 
equity  the  laws  are  distinguished.  While,  on  the  one 
hand,  excessive  accumulations,  either  of  capital  or  of 
land,  were  thus  made  impossible,  there  is  here  nothing 
of  the  destructive  communism  advocated  by  many  in 
our  day.  These  laws  put  no  premium  on  laziness ;  for 
if  a  man,  through  indolence  or  vice,  was  compelled  to 
sell  out  his  right  in  his  land,  he  had  no  security  of 
obtaining  it  again  until  the  jubilee  ;  that  is  to  say,  upon 
an  average,  during  his  working  lifetime.  On  the  other 
hand,  encouragement  was  given  to  industry,  as  a  man 
who  was  thrifty  might,  by  purchase  of  leaseholds, 
materially  increase  his  wealth  and  comfort  in  life. 
And  the  effect  on  inheritance  is  evident.  There  could, 
on  the  one  hand,  be  no  inheritance  of  such  colossal 
and  overgrown  fortunes  as  are  possible  in  our  modern 
states, — no  blessing,  certainly,  in  many  cases,  to  the 
heirs ;  and  neither,  on  the  other  hand,  could  there  be 
any  inheritance  of  hopeless  and  degrading  poverty.  A 
man  might  have  had  an  indolent  or  a  vicious  father, 
who  had  thus  forfeited  his  landholding ;  but  while  the 
father  would  doubtless  suffer  deserved  poverty  during 
his  active  life,  the  young  man,  when  the  jubilee  re- 
turned, and  the  lost  paternal  inheritance  reverted  to 
him,  would  have  the  opportunity  to  see  whether  he 
might  not,  with  his  father's  experience  before  him  as 
a  warning,  do  better,  and  retrieve  the  fortunes  of  the 


i;o8  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


family.  In  any  case,  he  would  not  start  upon  the 
work  of  life  weighted,  as  are  multitudes  among  us,  with 
a  crushing  and  almost  irremovable  burden  of  poverty. 

It  is  certain,  no  doubt,  that  these  laws  are  not  morally 
binding  now ;  and  no  less  certain,  probably,  that  failing, 
as  they  did,  to  secure  observance  in  Israel,  such  laws, 
even  if  enacted,  could  not  in  our  day  be  practically 
carried  out  any  more  than  then.  Nevertheless,  so  much 
we  may  safely  say,  that  the  intention  and  aim  of  these 
laws  as  regards  the  equal  distribution  of  wealth  in  the 
community  ought  to  be  the  aim  of  all  wise  legislation 
now.  It  is  certain  that  all  good  government  ought  to 
seek  in  all  righteous  and  equitable  ways  to  prevent  the 
formation  in  the  community  of  classes,  either  of  the 
excessively  rich  or  of  the  excessively  poor.  Absolute 
equality  in  this  respect  is  doubtless  unattainable,  and 
in  a  world  intended  for  purposes  of  moral  training  and 
discipline  were  even  undesirable ;  but  extreme  wealth 
or  extreme  poverty  are  certainly  evils  to  the  prevention 
of  which  our  legislators  may  well  give  their  minds. 
Only  it  needs  also  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  these 
Hebrew  laws  no  less  distinctly  teach  us  that  this  end 
is  to  be  sought  only  in  such  a  way  as  shall  neither,  on 
the  one  hand,  put  a  premium  on  laziness  and  vice,  nor, 
on  the  other,  deny  to  the  virtuous  and  industrious  the 
advantage  which  industry  and  virtue  deserve,  of  addi- 
tional wealth,  comfort,  and  exemption  from  toilsome 
drudgery. 

In  close  connection  with  all  this  it  will  be  observed 
that  all  this  legislation,  while  guarding  the  rights  of  the 
rich,  is  evidently  inspired  by  that  same  merciful  regard 
for  the  poor  which  marks  the  Levitical  law  throughout. 
For  in  all  these  regulations  it  is  assumed  that  there 
would  still  be  poor  in  the  land ;  but  the  law  secured  to 


XXV.  1-55.]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.   509 

the  poor  great  mitigations  of  poverty.  Every  seventh 
year  the  produce  of  the  land  was  to  be  free  alike  to  all ; 
if  one  were  poor  his  brother  was  to  uphold  him  ;  when 
lending  him,  he  was  not  to  add  to  the  debt  the  burden 
of  interest  or  increase.  And  then  there  was  to  the 
poor  man  the  ever-present  assurance,  which  alone 
would  take  off  half  the  bitterness  of  poverty,  that 
through  the  coming  of  the  jubilee  the  children  at  least 
would  have  a  new  chance,  and  start  life  on  an  equality, 
in  respect  of  inheritance  in  land,  with  the  sons  of  the 
richest.  And  when  we  remember  the  close  connection 
between  extreme  poverty  and  every  variety  of  crime, 
it  is  plain  that  the  whole  legislation  is  as  admirably 
adapted  to  the  prevention  of  crime  as  of  abject  and 
hopeless  poverty.  Well  might  Asaph  use  the  words 
which  he  employs,  with  evident  allusion  to  the  trumpet 
sound  which  ushered  in  the  jubilee :  *^  Happy  the 
people  that  know  the  joyful  sound  ! "  i.e,j  that  have  the 
blessed  experience  of  the  jubilee,  that  supreme  earthly 
sabbatism  of  the  people  of  God.^ 

Most  significant  and  full  of  instruction,  no  less  to  us 
than  to  Israel,  was  the  ordinance  that  both  the  sabbatic 
and  the  jubilee  years  should  date  from  the  day  of 
Atonement.  It  was  when,  having  completed  the  solemn 
ritual  of  that  day,  the  high  priest  put  on  again  his 
beautiful  garments  and  came  forth,  having  made  atone- 
ment for  all  the  transgressions  of  Israel,  that  the 
trumpet  of  the  jubilee  was  to  be  sounded.  Thus  was 
Israel  reminded  in  the  most  impressive  manner  possible 
that  all  these  social,  civil,  and  communal  blessings  were 
possible  only  on  condition  of  reconciliation  with  God 
through  atoning  blood ;  atonement  in  the  highest  and 

*  See  Psalm  Ixxxix.  15. 


510  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


fullest  sense,  which  should  reach  even  to  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  and  place  the  blood  on  the  very  mercy-seat  of 
Jehovah.  This  is  true  still,  though  the  nations  have 
yet  to  learn  it.  The  salvation  of  nations,  no  less  than 
that  of  individuals,  is  conditioned  by  national  fellowship 
with  God,  secured  through  the  great  Atonement  of  the 
Lord.  Not  until  the  nations  learn  this  lesson  may  we 
expect  to  see  the  crying  evils  of  the  earth  removed,  or 
the  questions  of  property,  of  land-holding,  of  capital 
and  labour,  justly  and  happily  solved. 

Typical  Significance  of  the  Sabbatic  and 
Jubilee  Years. 

But  we  must  not  forget  that  the  sabbatic  year  and 
the  year  of  jubilee,  following  the  seventh  seven  of  years, 
are  the  two  last  members  of  a  sabbatic  system  of 
septenary  periods,  namely,  the  sabbath  of  the  seventh 
day,  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  following  the  expiry  of  the 
seventh  week  from  Passover,  and  then  the  still  more 
sacred  seventh  month,  with  its  two  great  feasts,  and 
the  day  of  atonement  intervening.  But,  as  we  have 
seen,  we  have  good  scriptural  authority  for  regarding 
all  these  as  typical.  Each  in  succession  brings  out 
another  stage  or  aspect  of  the  great  Messianic  redemp- 
tion, in  a  progressive  revelation  historically  unfolding. 
In  all  of  these  alike  we  have  been  able  to  trace  thoughts 
connected  \^ith  the  sabbatic  idea,  as  pointing  forward 
to  the  final  rest,  redemption,  and  consummated  restora- 
tion, the  sabbatism  that  remaineth  to  the  people  of  God. 
To  these  precedmg  sabbatic  periods  these  last  two  are 
closely  related.  Both  alike  began  on  the  great  day  of 
atonement,  in  which  all  Israel  was  to  afflict  their  souls 
in  penitence  for  sin ;  and  on  that  day  they  both  began 
when  the  high  priest  came  out  from  within  the  veil, 


XXV.  1-55]   THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE,   511 

where,  from  the  time  of  his  offering  the  sin-offering,  he 
had  been  hidden  from  the  sight  of  Israel  for  a  season ; 
and  both  aHke  were  ushered  in  with  a  trumpet  blast. 

We  shall  hardly  go  amiss  if  we  see  in  both  of  these — 
first  in  the  sabbatic  year,  and  still  more  clearly  in  the 
year  of  jubilee — a  prophetic  foreshadowing  in  type  of 
that  final  repentance  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the 
latter  days,  and  their  consequent  re-establishment  in  their 
land,  which  the  prophets  so  fully  and  explicitly  predict. 
In  that  day  they  are  to  return,  as  the  prophets  bear 
witness,  every  man  to  the  land  which  the  Lord  gave 
for  an  inheritance  to  their  fathers.  Indeed,  one  might 
say  with  truth  that  even  the  lesser  restoration  from 
Babylon  was  prefigured  in  this  ordinance ;  but,  without 
doubt,  its  chief  and  supreme  reference  must  be  to  that 
greater  restoration  still  in  the  future,  of  which  we  read, 
for  example,  in  Isa.  xi.  11,  when  "the  Lord  shall  set 
His  hand  again  the  second  time  to  recover  the  remnant 
of  His  people,  which  shall  remain,  from  Assyria,  and 
from  Egypt,  .  .  .  and  from  the  islands  of  the  sea." 

But  the  typical  reference  of  these  sacred  years  of 
sabbatism  reaches  yet  beyond  what  pertains  to  Israel 
alone.  For  not  only,  according  to  the  prophets  and 
apostles,  is  there  to  be  a  restoration  of  Israel,  but  also, 
as  the  Apostle  Peter  declared  to  the  Jews  (Acts  iii. 
19-21),  closely  connected  with  and  consequent  on 
this,  a  "  restoration  of  all  things."  And  it  is  in  this 
great,  final,  and  exceedingly  glorious  restoration  of  the 
time  of  the  end  that  we  recognise  the  ultimate  antitype 
of  these  sabbatic  seasons.  When  read  in  the  light  of 
later  predictions  they  appear  to  point  forward  with 
singular  distinctness  to  what,  according  to  the  Holy 
Word,  shall  be  when  Jesus  Christ,  the  heavenly  High 
Priest,  shall  come  forth  from  within  the  veil ;  when  the 


512  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

last  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  He  who  was  *'  once  offered 
to  bear  the  sins  of  many  "  shall  appear  a  second  time, 
apart  from  sin,  to  them  that  wait  for  Him,  unto  salva- 
tion (Heb.  ix.  28). 

Even  in  the  beginning  of  the  Pentateuch  (Gen.  iii. 
17-19)  it  is  explicitly  taught  that  because  of  Adam's 
sin,  the  curse  of  God,  in  some  mysterious  way,  fell 
even  upon  the  material  earthly  creation.  We  read 
that  the  Lord  said  unto  Adam  :  "  Cursed  is  the  ground 
for  thy  sake ;  in  toil  shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of 
thy  life ;  thorns  also  and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth 
to  thee ;  and  thou  shalt  eat  the  herb  of  the  field ;  in 
the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till  thou 
return  unto  the  ground."  It  is  because  of  sin,  then, 
that  man  is  doomed  to  labour,  toilsome  and  imperfectly 
requited  by  an  unwilling  soil.  It  lies  immediately 
before  us  that  both  the  sabbatic  year  and  the  year  of 
jubilee,  by  the  ordinance  regarding  the  rest  for  the 
land,  and  the  special  promise  of  sufficiency  without  ex- 
hausting labour,  involved  for  Israel  a  temporary  suspen- 
sion of  the  full  operation  of  this  curse.  The  ordinance 
therefore  points  unmistakably  in  a  prophetic  way  to 
what  the  New  Testament  explicitly  predicts — the 
coming  of  a  day  when,  with  man  redeemed,  material 
nature  also  shall  share  the  great  dehverance.  In  a 
word,  in  the  sabbatic  year,  and  in  a  yet  higher  form  in 
the  year  of  jubilee,  we  have  in  symbol  the  wonderful 
truth  which  in  the  most  didactic  language  is  formally 
declared  by  the  Apostle  Paul  in  these  words  (Rom. 
viii.  19-22)  :  "  The  earnest  expectation  of  the  creation 
waiteth  for  the  revealing  of  the  sons  of  God.  For  the 
creation  was  subjected  to  vanity,  not  of  its  own  will, 
but  by  reason  of  him  who  subjected  it,  in  hope  that  the 
creation  itself  also  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage 


XXV.  1-55]    THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  513 

of  corruption  into  the  liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  children 
of  God.  For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth 
and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now." 

The  jubilee  year  contained  in  type  all  this,  and  more. 
Where  the  sabbatic  year  had  typically  pointed  only  to 
a  coming  rest  of  the  earth  from  the  primeval  curse, 
the  jubilee,  faUing,  not  on  a  seventh,  but  on  an  eighth 
year,  following  immediately  on  the  sabbatic  seventh, 
pointed  also  to  the  permanence  of  this  blessed  condi- 
tion. It  is  the  festival,  by  eminence,  of  the  new 
creation,  of  paradise  completely  and  for  ever  restored. 

Moreover,  as  falling  in  the  fiftieth  year,  and  there- 
fore on  an  eighth  year  of  the  sabbatic  calendar,  the 
jubilee  was  to  the  week  of  years  as  the  Lord's  day 
to  the  week  of  days.  Like  that,  it  is  the  festival  01 
resurrection.  This  is  as  clearly  foreshadowed  in  the 
type  as  the  other.  For  in  the  year  of  jubilee  not  only 
was  the  land  to  rest,  but  every  bond-slave  was  to  be 
released,  and  to  return  to  his  inheritance  and  to  his 
family.  In  the  light  of  what  has  preceded,  and  of  other 
revelations  of  Scripture,  we  can  hardly  miss  of  perceiv- 
ing the  typical  meaning  of  this.  For  what  is  the  great 
event  which  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the  passage  just 
cited,  associates  in  time  with  the  deliverance  of  the 
earthly  creation,  but  *'  the  redemption  of  the  body,"  as 
the  final  issue  of  the  atoning  work  of  Christ  ?  For  as 
yet  even  believers  are  in  bondage  to  death  and  the 
grave ;  but  the  day  which  is  coming,  the  day  of  earth's 
redemption,  shall  bring  to  all  that  are  Christ's,  all  that 
are  Israelites  indeed,  deliverance  *'  from  the  bondage 
of  corruption  into  the  liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  children 
of  God." 

And  as  the  slave  who  was  freed  in  the  year  of 
jubilee  therewith  also  returned  to  his  forfeited  inheri- 

33 


514  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

tance,  so  also  shall  it  be  in  that  day.  For  precisely 
this  is  given  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment (i  Peter  i.  4,  5),  as  another  aspect  of  the  day  when 
the  heavenly  Aaron  shall  come  forth  from  the  Holiest. 
For  we  are  begotten  unto  an  inheritance,  reserved  in 
heaven  for  us,  ''  who  by  the  power  of  God  are  guarded 
through  faith  unto  a  salvation  ready  to  be  revealed 
in  the  last  time."  Cast  out  through  death  from  the 
inheritance  of  the  earth,  which  in  the  beginning  was 
given  by  God  to  our  first  father,  and  to  his  seed  in  him, 
but  which  was  lost  to  him  and  to  his  children  through 
his  sin,  the  great  jubilee  of  the  future  shall  bring  us 
again,  every  man  who  is  in  Christ  by  faith,  into  the 
lost  inheritance,  redeemed  and  glorified  citizens  of  a 
redeemed  and  glorified  earth.  Hence  it  is  that  in 
Rev.  xxii.  we  are  shown  in  vision,  first,  the  new  earth, 
delivered  from  the  curse,  and  then  the  New  Jerusalem, 
the  Church  of  the  risen  and  glorified  saints  of  God, 
descending  from  God  out  of  heaven,  to  assume  posses- 
sion of  the  purchased  inheritance. 

And  the  law  adds  also :  "  Ye  shall  return  every 
man  unto  his  family  ; "  which  gives  the  last  feature 
here  prefigured  of  that  supreme  sabbatism  which 
remaineth  for  the  people  of  God  (Heb.  iv.  9).  It 
shall  bring  the  reunion  of  those  who  had  been  parted 
and  scattered.  The  day  of  resurrection  is  accordingly 
spoken  of  (2  Thess.  ii.  i)  as  a  day  of  "gathering  to- 
gether" of  all  who,  though  one  in  Christ,  have  been 
rudely  parted  by  death.  And  yet  more,  it  will  be 
"  the  day  of  our  gathering  together  unto  Him,"  even 
th^  blessed  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  "  Goel,'^  the  Kins- 
man-Redeemer of  the  ruined  bondsmen  and  their  lost 
inheritance :  "  Whom  not  having  seen,  we  love,"  but 
then  expect  to  see  even  as  He  is,  and  beholding  Ilim, 


XXV.  I -55-]  THE  SABBATIC  YEAR  AND  THE  JUBILEE.  515 

be  like  Him,  and  be  with  Him  for  ever  and  for  ever. 
Who  should  not  long  for  the  day  ? — the  day  when  for 
the  first  time,  this  last  type  of  Leviticus  shall  pass  into 
complete  fulfilment  in  the  antitype ;  the  day  of  "  the 
restoration  of  all  things ; "  the  day  of  the  deliverance 
of  the  material  creation  from  her  present  bondage 
to  corruption ;  the  day  also  of  the  release  of  every 
true  Israelite  from  the  bondage  of  death,  and  the 
eternal  establishment  of  all  such  with  the  Elder  Brother, 
the  First-begotten,  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  inheritance 
of  the  saints  in  light. 

"  Love,  rest,  and  home  I 
Sweet  hope  ! 
Lord  1  tarry  not,  but  COME  1  * 


PART   III. 
CONCLUSION  AND  APPENDIX. 

XXVI.,    XXVII. 


I.  Conclusion  :  Promises  and  Threatenings  :  xxvi. 
2   Appendix  :  Concerning  Vows  :  xxvii. 


CHAPTER   XXVII. 

THE  PROMISES  AND   THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT 

Lev,  xxvi.  1-46. 

ONE  would  have  expected  that  this  chapter  would 
have  been  the  last  in  the  book  of  Leviticus,  for 
it  forms  a  natural  and  fitting  close  to  the  whole  law  as 
hitherto  recorded.  But  whatever  may  have  been  the 
reason  of  its  present  literary  form,  the  fact  remains 
that  while  this  chapter  is,  in  outward  form,  the  con- 
clusion of  the  Levitical  law,  another  chapter  follows  it 
in  the  manner  of  an  appendix. 

Chapter  xxvi.  opens  with  these  words  (vv.  I,  2)  : 
*'  Ye  shall  make  you  no  idols,  neither  shall  ye  rear  you 
up  a  graven  image,  or  a  pillar,  neither  shall  ye  place 
any  figured  stone  in  your  land,  to  bow  down  unto  it : 
for  I  am  the  Lord  your  God.  Ye  shall  keep  My 
sabbaths,  and  reverence  My  sanctuary :  I  am  the 
Lord." 

These  verses,  as  they  stand  in  the  English  versions 
as  a  preface  to  this  chapter,  at  first  sight  seem  but 
distantly  related  to  what  follows  ;  and  the  Chaldee 
paraphrast  and  others  have  therefore  appended  them 
to  the  preceding  chapter.  But  with  that  they  have 
even  less  evident  connection.  The  thought  of  the  editor 
of  this  part  of  the  canon,  however,  seems  to  have  been 
that   the   three   commands   which   are   here   repeated 


520  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

might  be  regarded  as  presenting  a  compendious  sum- 
mary, in  its  fundamental  principles,  of  the  whole  law, 
the  promises  and  threatenings  attached  to  which 
immediately  follow.  And  the  more  we  think  upon 
these  commands  and  what  they  involve,  the  more 
evident  will  appear  the  fitness  of  their  selection  from 
the  whole  law  to  introduce  this  chapter. 

The  commands  which  are  here  repeated  are  three : 
namely,  (i)  a  detailed  prohibition  of  idolatry  in  the 
forms  then  chiefly  prevalent ;  (2)  an  injunction  to 
observe  God's  sabbaths ;  and  (3)  to  reverence  His 
sanctuary.  Inasmuch  as  the  various  forms  of  idol- 
worship,  which  are  here  forbidden,  all  involved  the 
recognition  of  gods  other  than  Jehovah,  it  is  plain 
that  ver.  i  is  in  effect  inclusive  of  the  first  and  second 
commandments  of  the  decalogue.  The  injunction  to 
keep  God's  sabbaths,  although  in  principle  including 
all  the  sabbatic  times  previously  appointed,  evidently 
refers  especially  to  the  weekly  sabbath  of  the  fourth 
commandment ;  while  the  command  to  reverence  the 
sanctuary  of  Jehovah  covers  in  principle  the  ground  of 
the  third.  And  thus,  in  fact,  these  three  injunctions 
essentially  include  the  four  commands  of  the  decalogue 
which  have  to  do  with  man's  duty  to  God,  and  are  thus 
fundamental  to  all  other  duties,  both  to  God  and  man. 
Very  appropriately,  then,  are  these  verses  given  here 
as  a  brief  summary  of  the  law  to  which  the  following 
promises  and  threatenings  are  annexed.  And  their 
suitableness  to  that  which  follows  is  the  more  clear 
when  we  remember  that  the  weekly  sabbath,  in  parti- 
cular, is  elsewhere  (Exod.  xxxi.  12-17)  declared  to  be 
a  sign  of  God's  covenant  with  Israel,  to  which  these 
promises  and  threats  belong ;  and  that  the  presence  of 
Jehovah's  sanctuary  also,  which  they  are  here  charged 


xxvi.]  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT.  521 

to  reverence,  was  a  continual  visible  witness  among 
them  of  the  special  presence  of  God  in  Israel  in 
pursuance  of  that  covenant. 

After  this  pertinent  summation  of  the  most  funda- 
mental commands  of  the  law,  the  remainder  of  the 
chapter  contains,  first  (vv.  3-13),  promises  of  blessing 
from  God,  in  case  they  shall  obey  this  law ;  secondly 
(vv.  14-39),  threats  of  chastising  judgment,  in  case  they 
disobey ;  and,  thirdly  (vv.  40-45),  a  prediction  of 
their  final  repentance,  and  promise  of  their  gracious 
restoration  thereupon  to  the  favour  of  God,  and  the 
everlasting  endurance  of  God's  covenant  to  preserve 
them  in  existence  as  a  nation.  The  chapter  then  closes 
(ver.  46)  with  the  declaration  :  "  These  are  the  statutes 
and  judgments  and  laws,  which  the  Lord  made  between 
Him  and  the  children  of  Israel  in  mount  Sinai  by  the 
hand  of  Moses." 

The  Promises  of  the  Covenant. 

xxvi.  3-13. 

'•  If  ye  walk  in  My  statutes,  and  keep  My  commandments,  and  do 
them ;  then  I  will  give  your  rains  in  their  season,  and  the  land  shall 
yield  her  increase,  and  the  trees  of  the  field  shall  yield  their  fruit. 
And  your  threshing  shall  reach  unto  the  vintage,  and  the  vintage 
shall  reach  unto  the  sowing  time  :  and  ye  shall  eat  your  bread  to 
the  full,  and  dwell  in  your  land  safely.  And  I  will  give  peace  in  the 
land,  and  ye  shall  lie  down,  and  none  shall  make  you  afraid :  and  I 
will  cause  evil  beasts  to  cease  out  of  the  land,  neither  shall  the  sword 
go  through  your  land.  And  ye  shall  chase  your  enemies,  and  they 
shall  fall  before  you  by  the  sword.  And  five  of  you  shall  chase  an 
hundred,  and  an  hundred  of  you  shall  chase  ten  thousand  :  and  your 
enemies  shall  fall  before  you  by  the  sword.  And  I  will  have  respect 
unto  you,  and  make  you  fruitful,  and  multiply  you ;  and  I  will 
establish  My  covenant  with  you.  And  ye  shall  eat  old  store  long 
kept,  and  ye  shall  bring  forth  the  old  because  of  the  new.  And  I  will 
set  My  tabernacle  among  you  :  and  My  soul  shall  not  abhor  you.  And 
I  will  walk  among  you,  and  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  My 


522  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

people.  I  am  the  Lord  your  God,  which  brought  you  forth  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  that  ye  should  not  be  their  bondmen ;  and  I  have 
broken  the  bars  of  your  yoke,  and  made  you  go  upright." 

The  promises  of  the  covenant  are  thus  to  the  effect  that 
if  Israel  shall  keep  the  law,  God  will  give  them  rain  and 
fruitful  seasons,  harvests  so  abundant  that  the  "  thresh- 
ing shall  reach  unto  the  vintage,  and  the  vintage  shall 
reach  unto  the  sowing  time ;  "  internal  security ;  deliver- 
ance from  the  wild  beasts,  which  are  still  such  a 
scourge  in  many  parts  of  the  East ;  and  such  power 
and  spirit,  that  no  enemy  shall  be  able  to  stand  before 
them,  but  five  of  them  shall  chase  an  hundred,  and  an 
hundred  chase  ten  thousand.  Then  (ver.  9)  is  renewed 
the  promise,  given  long  before  to  Abraham,  of  a  great 
increase  in  their  numbers  ;  and  thereupon,  very  naturally, 
is  repeated  the  promise  of  abundant  harvests,  so  that 
notwithstanding  they  shall  be  so  multiplied,  one  year's 
harvest  should  not  be  consumed  before  it  would  have 
to  be  removed  from  the  granaries  to  make  room  for  the 
new  (ver.  10).  And  then  this  section  ends  with  the 
assurance,  which  secures  all  other  blessings,  temporal 
and  spiritual,  that  God  will  abide  among  them  in  His 
tabernacle,  and  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be 
His  people.  And  the  fulfilment  of  all  this  is  guaran- 
teed by  the  person,  the  purpose,  and  the  past  dealing 
of  the  Promiser;  Himself,  Jehovah;  His  purpose,  to 
deliver  them  from  bondage ;  and  His  past  mercy,  in 
breaking  the  bands  of  their  yoke. 

"The  Vengeance  of  the  Covenant." 

xxvi.  14-46. 

"  But  if  ye  will  not  hearken  unto  Me,  and  will  not  do  all  these  com- 
mandments ;  and  if  ye  shall  reject  My  statutes,  and  if  your  soul  abhor 
My  judgments,  so  that  ye  will  not  do  all  My  commandments,  but  break 
My  covenant ;  I  also  will  do  this  unto  you ;  I  will  appoint  terror 


xxvi.]  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT.  523 

over  you,  even  consumption  and  fever,  that  shall  consume  the  eyes, 
and  make  the  soul  to  pine  away :  and  ye  shall  sow  your  seed  in  vain 
for  your  enemies  shall  eat  it.  And  I  will  set  My  face  against  you 
and  ye  shall  be  smitten  before  your  enemies :  they  that  hate  you 
shall  rule  over  you;  and  ye  shall  flee  when  none  pursueth  you. 
And  if  ye  will  not  yet  for  these  things  hearken  unto  me,  then  I  will 
chastise  you  seven  times  more  for  your  sins.  And  I  will  break  the 
pride  of  your  power;  and  I  will  make  your  heaven  as  iron,  and  your 
earth  as  brass :  and  your  strength  shall  be  spent  in  vain  :  for  your 
land  shall  not  yield  her  increase,  neither  shall  the  trees  of  the  land 
yield  their  fruit.  And  if  ye  walk  contrary  unto  Me,  and  will  not 
hearken  unto  Me ;  I  will  bring  seven  times  more  plagues  upon  you 
according  to  your  sins.  And  I  will  send  the  beast  of  the  field  among 
you,  which  shall  rob  you  of  your  children,  and  destroy  your  cattle, 
and  make  you  few  in  number ;  and  your  ways  shall  become  deso- 
late. And  if  by  these  things  ye  will  not  be  reformed  unto  Me, 
but  will  walk  contrary  unto  Me;  then  will  I  also  walk  contrary 
unto  you ;  and  I  will  smite  you,  even  I,  seven  times  for  your  sins. 
And  I  will  bring  a  sword  upon  you,  that  shall  execute  the  vengeance 
of  the  covenant ;  and  ye  shall  be  gathered  together  within  your 
cities :  and  I  will  send  the  pestilence  among  you ;  and  ye  shall  be 
delivered  into  the  hand  of  the  enemy.  When  I  break  your  staff 
of  bread,  ten  women  shall  bake  your  bread  in  one  oven,  and  they 
shall  deliver  your  bread  again  by  weight :  and  ye  shall  eat,  and  not 
be  satisfied.  And  if  ye  will  not  for  all  this  hearken  unto  Me,  but 
walk  contrary  unto  Me  ;  then  I  will  walk  contrary  unto  you  in  fury ; 
and  I  also  will  chastise  you  seven  times  for  your  sins.  And  ye  shall 
eat  the  flesh  of  your  sons,  and  the  flesh  of  your  daughters  shall  ye 
eat.  And  I  will  destroy  your  high  places,  and  cut  down  your  sun- 
images,  and  cast  your  carcases  upon  the  carcases  of  your  idols  ;  and 
My  soul  shall  abhor  you.  And  I  will  make  your  cities  a  waste,  and 
will  bring  your  sanctuaries  unto  desolation,  and  I  will  not  smell  the 
savour  of  your  sweet  odours.  And  I  will  bring  the  land  into  desola- 
tion :  and  your  enemies  which  dwell  therein  shall  be  astonished  at  it. 
And  you  will  I  scatter  among  the  nations,  and  I  will  draw  out  the 
sword  after  you  :  and  your  land  shall  be  a  desolation,  and  your 
cities  shall  be  a  waste.  Then  shall  the  land  enjoy  her  sabbaths,  as 
long  as  it  lieth  desolate,  and  ye  be  in  your  enemies'  land ;  even  then 
shall  the  land  rest,  and  enjoy  her  sabbaths.  As  long  as  it  lieth 
desolate  it  shall  have  rest ;  even  the  rest  which  it  had  not  in  your 
sabbaths,  when  ye  dwelt  upon  it.  And  as  for  them  that  are  left 
of  you  I  will  send  a  faintness  into  their  heart  in  the  lands  of  their 
enemies  :  and   the   sound   of  a   driven   leaf  shall  chase   them ;  and 


524  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

they  shall  flee,  as  one  fleeth  from  the  sword  ;  and  they  shall  fall 
when  none  pursueth.  And  they  shall  stumble  one  upon  another,  as 
it  were  before  the  sword,  when  none  pursueth  :  and  ye  shall  have 
no  power  to  stand  before  your  enemies.  And  ye  shall  perish  among 
the  nations,  and  the  land  of  your  enemies  shall  eat  you  up.  And 
they  that  are  left  of  you  shall  pine  away  in  their  iniquity  in  your 
enemies'  lands;  and  also  in  the  iniquities  of  their  fathers  shall  they 
pine  away  with  them.  And  they  shall  confess  their  iniquity,  and  the 
iniquity  of  their  fathers,  in  their  trespass  which  they  trespassed 
against  Me,  and  also  that  because  they  have  walked  contrary  unto 
Me,  I  also  walked  contrary  unto  them,  and  brought  them  into  the 
land  of  their  enemies :  if  then  their  uncircumcised  heart  be  humbled, 
and  they  then  accept  of  the  punishment  of  their  iniquity ;  then  will 
I  remember  My  covenant  with  Jacob  ;  and  also  My  covenant  with 
Isaac,  and  also  My  covenant  with  Abraham  will  I  remember ;  and  I 
will  remember  the  land.  The  land  also  shall  be  left  of  them,  and 
shall  enjoy  her  sabbaths,  while  she  lieth  desolate  without  them  ;  and 
they  shall  accept  of  the  punishment  of  their  iniquity :  because,  even 
because  they  rejected  My  judgments,  and  their  soul  abhorred  My 
statutes.  And  yet  for  all  that,  when  they  be  in  the  land  of  their 
enemies,  I  will  not  reject  them,  neither  will  I  abhor  them,  to  destroy 
them  utterly,  and  to  break  My  covenant  with  them :  for  I  am  the 
Lord  their  God  :  but  I  will  for  their  sakes  remember  the  covenant  of 
their  ancestors,  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  in  the 
sight  of  the  nations,  that  I  might  be  their  God :  I  am  the  Lord. 
These  are  the  statutes  and  judgments  and  laws,  which  the  Lord 
made  between  Him  and  the  children  of  Israel  in  mount  Sinai  by  the 
hand  of  Moses." 

So,  if  Israel  should  not  obey  the  commandments 
of  the  Lord,  but  break  that  covenant  which  they  had 
made  with  Him,  when  they  had  said  unto  the  Lord 
(Exod.  xxiv.  7)  :  *'  All  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken  will  we 
do,  and  be  obedient ; "  then  they  are  threatened,  first 
in  a  general  way  (vv.  14-17)  with  terrible  judgments, 
which  shall  reverse,  and  more  than  reverse,  all  the 
blessings.  God  will  appoint  over  them  "  terror ; " 
disease  shall  ravage  them,  consumption  and  fever; 
their  enemies  shall  lay  waste  the  land,  defeat  them  in 
battle,  and  rule  over  them  ;  and  instead  of  five  of  them 


xxvi.]  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT.  525 

chasing  an  hundred,  they  should  flee  when  none  was 
pursuing  (vv.  17,  18).  Then  follow  four  series  of 
threats,  each  conditioned  by  the  supposition  that  through 
what  they  should  have  already  experienced  of  Jehovah's 
judgment,  they  should  not  repent ;  each  also  introduced 
by  the  formula,  ^'  I  will  chastise  (or  "  smite " )  you 
seven  times  for  your  sins."  In  this  four  times  repeated 
series  of  denunciations,  thus  introduced,  we  are  not  to 
insist  that  numerical  precision  was  intended;  neither 
can  we,  with  some,  give  to  the  '^  seven  times "  a 
numerical  or  temporal  reference.  The  thought  which 
runs  through  all  these  denunciations,  and  determines 
the  form  which  they  take,  is  this  :  that  the  judgments 
threatened  as  to  follow  each  new  display  of  hardness 
and  impenitence  on  the  part  of  Israel  shall  be  marked 
by  continually  increasing  severity ;  and  the  phrase 
"  seven  times,"  by  the  reference  to  the  sacred  number 
"  seven,"  intimates  that  the  vengeance  should  be  *'  the 
vengeance  of  the  covenant "  (ver.  25),  and  also  the 
awful  thoroughness  and  completeness  with  which 
the  threatened  judgments,  in  case  of  their  continued 
obduracy,  would  be  inflicted. 

This  interpretation  is  sustained  by  the  details  of  each 
section.  The  first  series  (w.  18-20),  in  which  the 
threatenings  of  vv.  14-17  are  developed,  adds  to  what 
had  been  previously  threatened,  the  withholding  of 
harvest  for  lack  of  rain.  He  who  had  promised  to 
send  the  rains  "in  their  season,"  if  they  were  obedient, 
now  declares  that  if  they  will  not  hearken  unto  Him 
for  the  other  chastisements  before  denounced.  He  will 
"make  their  heaven  as  iron,  and  their  earth  as  brass." 
The  second  series  threatens  in  addition  their  devasta- 
tion by  wild  beasts,  which  shall  rob  them  of  their 
children  and  their  cattle ;  and  also,  in  consequence  of 


526  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

these  great  iudgments,  with  a  great  diminution  of  their 
numbers.  The  third  series  (vv.  23-26)  repeats, 
under  forms  still  more  intense,  the  threats  of  sword, 
pestilence,  and  famine.  The  staff  of  bread  shall  be 
broken,  and  when,  stricken  with  pestilence,  they  are 
gathered  together  in  their  cities,  one  oven  shall  suffice 
ten  women  for  their  baking,  and  bread  shall  be 
distributed  by  rations  and  in  insufficient  quantity 
(vv.  25,  26). 

It  is  intimated  that  with  these  extraordinary  judg- 
ments it  shall  become  increasingly  evident  that  it  is 
Jehovah  who  is  thus  dealing  with  them  for  the  breach 
of  His  covenant.  This  is  suggested  (ver.  24)  by  the 
emphatic  use  of  the  personal  pronoun  in  the  Hebrew, 
only  to  be  rendered  in  English  by  a  stress  of  voice ; 
and  by  the  declaration  (ver.  25)  that  the  sword  which 
should  be  brought  upon  them  should  ^*  execute  the 
vengeance  of  the  covenant." 

The  same  remark  applies  with  still  more  emphasis  to 
the  next  and  last  of  these  sub-sections  (vv.  27-39),  the 
terrific  denunciations  of  which  are  introduced  by  these 
words,  which  almost  seem  to  flash  with  the  fire  of 
God's  avenging  wrath:  "  If  .  .  .  ye  will  walk  contrary 
unto  Me ;  then  I  will  walk  contrary  unto  you  in  fury 
{Ht.y  ''  I  will  walk  with  you  in  fury  of  opposition  ") ; 
and  I  also  will  chastise  you  seven  times  for  your  sins." 
All  that  has  been  threatened  before  is  here  repeated 
with  every  circumstance  which  could  add  terror  to  the 
picture.  Was  famine  threatened  ?  it  shall  be  so  awful 
in  its  severity  that  they  shall  eat  the  flesh  of  their 
own  sons  and  daughters.  The  high  places  which  had 
been  the  scenes  of  their  licentious  worship  should 
be  destroyed,  and  the  "  sun-images  "  which  they  had 
worshipped,  going  after  Baal,   should    be   cut   down ; 


xxvi.]  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT.  527 

and,  in  visible  sign  of  the  Divine  wrath  and  of  God's 
holy  contempt  for  the  impotent  idols  for  which  they 
had  forsaken  the  Lord,  upon  the  fallen  idols  should  lie 
the  dead  corpses  of  their  worshippers.  The  sanc- 
tuaries (with  special, — though,  perhaps,  not  exclusive, — 
reference,  as  the  following  words  show,  to  the  holy 
places  of  Jehovah's  tabernacle  or  temple)  should 
become  a  desolation ;  the  sweet  savour  of  their  sacri- 
fices should  be  rejected.  The  holy  people  should  be 
scattered  into  other  lands  ;  the  land  should  become  so 
desolate  that  those  of  their  enemies  who  should  dwell 
in  it  should  themselves  be  astonished  at  its  trans- 
formation. And  so,  while  they  should  be  scattered 
in  their  enemies'  land,  the  land  would  ''enjoy  her 
sabbaths ; " '  i.e.j  it  should  thus,  untilled  and  desolate, 
enjoy  the  rest  which  Jehovah  had  commanded  them 
to  give  the  land  each  seventh  year,  which  they  had  not 
observed.  Meanwhile,  the  condition  of  the  banished 
nation  in  the  lands  of  their  captivity  should  be  most 
pitiful :  minished  in  number,  those  that  were  left  alive 
should  pine  away  in  their  iniquities,  and  in  the  iniquity 
of  their  fathers ;  timid  and  broken-spirited,  they  should 


'  Much  has  been  made  of  this  reference  to  the  neglect  of  the 
sabbatic  years  as  evidence  of  the  late  composition  of  the  chapter ; 
but  surely  in  this  argument  there  is  little  force.  For,  even  apart 
from  any  question  of  inspiration,  the  ordinance  of  the  sabbatic  year 
was  of  such  an  extraordinary  character,  so  opposed  alike  to  human 
selfishness  and  eagerness  for  gain,  and  calling  for  such  faith  in  God, 
that  it  would  require  no  great  knowledge  of  human  nature  to  antici- 
pate its  probable  neglect,  even  on  natural  grounds.  But,  even  were 
this  not  so,  still  an  argument  of  this  kind  against  the  Mosaic  origin 
of  this  minatory  section  of  the  covenant  can  have  decisive  force  for 
those  only  who,  for  whatsoever  reason,  have  come  to  disbelieve  that 
God  can  tell  beforehand  what  free  agents  will  do,  or  that,  ff  He 
know.  He  can  impart  that  knowledge  to  His  servants. 


528  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

flee  before  the  sound  of  a  broken  leaf,  and  the  land  of 
their  enemies  should  *'  eat  them  up." 

And  herewith  ends  the  second  section  of  this  re- 
markable prophecy.  Promising  Israel  the  highest 
prosperity  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  if  they  will  keep  the 
words  of  this  covenant,  it  threatens  them  with  succes- 
sive judgments  of  sword,  famine,  and  pestilence,  of 
continually  increasing  severity,  to  culminate,  if  they 
yet  persist  in  disobedience,  in  their  expulsion  from  the 
land  for  a  prolonged  period ;  and  predicts  their  con- 
tinued existence,  despite  the  most  distressing  conditions, 
in  the  lands  of  their  enemies,  while  their  own  land 
meanwhile  lies  desolate  and  untilled  without  them. 

The  fundamental  importance  and  instructiveness  of 
this  prophecy  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  all  later 
predictions  concerning  the  fortunes  of  Israel  are  but 
its  more  detailed  exposition  and  application  to  succes- 
sive historical  conditions.  Still  more  evident  is  its 
profound  significance  when  we  recall  to  mind  the  fact, 
disputed  by  none,  that  not  only  is  it  an  epitome  of  all 
later  prophecy  of  Holy  Scripture  concerning  Israel, 
but,  no  less  truly,  an  epitome  of  Israel's  history.  So 
strictly  true  is  this  that  we  may  accurately  describe  the 
history  of  that  nation,  from  the  days  of  Moses  until 
now,  as  but  the  translation  of  this  chapter  from  the 
language  of  prediction  into  that  of  history. 

The  facts  which  illustrate  this  statement  are  so 
familiar  that  one  scarcely  needs  to  refer  to  them.  The 
numerous  visitations  in  the  days  of  the  Judges,  when 
again  and  again  the  people  were  given  into  the  hands 
of  their  enemies  for  their  sins,  and  so  often  as  then 
they  repented,  were  again  and  again  delivered ;  the 
heavier  judgments  of  later  days,  first  in  the  days  of 
the  earlier  kings,   and  afterwards  culminating    in    the 


;cxvi.]  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT.  529 

captivity  of  the  ten  tribes,  following  the  siege  and 
capture  of  Samaria,  721  B.C. ;  and  still  later,  the  terrible 
siege  and  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
586  B.C.,  to  the  horrors  of  which  the  Lamentations  of 
Jeremiah  bear  most  sorrowful  witness  ; — what  were 
all  these  events,  with  others  of  lesser  importance,  but 
an  historical  unfolding  of  this  twenty-sixth  chapter 
of  Leviticus  ? 

And  how,  since  Old  Testament  days,  this  prophecy 
has  been  continually  illustrated  in  Israel's  history,  is, 
or  should  be,  familiar  to  all.  As  apostasy  has  suc- 
ceeded to  apostasy,  judgment  has  followed  upon  judg- 
ment. To  a  Nebuchadnezzar  succeeded  an  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  ;  and,  after  the  Greco-Syrian  judgment,  then, 
following  the  supreme  national  crime  of  the  rejection 
and  crucifixion  of  their  promised  Messiah,  came  the 
Roman  captivity,  the  most  terrible  of  all ;  a  judgment 
continued  even  until  now  in  the  eighteen  hundred 
years  of  Israel's  exile  from  the  land  of  the  covenant, 
and  their  scattering  among  the  nations, — eighteen 
hundred  years  of  tragic  suffering,  such  as  no  other 
nation  has  ever  known,  or,  knowing,  has  yet  survived  ; 
sufferings  which  are  still  exhibited  before  the  eyes  of 
all  the  world  to-day  in  the  bitter  experiences  of  the 
four  millions  of  Jews  in  the  Empire  of  the  Czar,  and 
the  persecutions  of  Anti-Shemitism  in  other  lands. 

Existing,  rather  than  living,  under  such  conditions 
for  centuries,  as  a  natural  result,  the  Jewish  people 
became  few  in  number,  as  here  predicted  ;  having  been 
reduced  from  not  less  than  seven  or  eight  millions  in 
the  days  of  the  kingdom,  to  a  minimum,  about  two 
hundred  years  ago,  of  not  more  than  three  millions,^ 

'  So  Basnage  ("History  of  the  Jews,"   London,  1700,  chap,  xxviii., 
sec.  1 5)  estimated  it  in  his  day.     Since  then,  however,  their  number 

34 


530  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

And,  Strangest  of  all,  throughout  this  time  the  once 
fertile  land  has  lain  desolate,  for  the  Gentiles  have 
never  settled  in  it  in  any  great  number  ;  and  in  place 
of  a  population  of  five  hundred  to  the  square  mile  in 
the  days  of  Solomon,  we  find  now  only  a  few  hundred 
thousand  miserable  people,  and  the  most  of  the  land, 
for  lack  of  cultivation,  in  such  a  condition  that  nothing 
can  easily  exceed  its  desolation.  And  when  we  have 
said  all  this,  and  much  more  that  might  be  said  with- 
out exaggeration,  we  have  but  simply  testified  that 
vv.  31-34  of  this  chapter  have  in  the  fullest  possible 
sense  become  historical  fact.  For  it  was  written  (vv. 
32-34)  :  "  I  will  bring  the  land  into  desolation :  and 
your  enemies  which  dwell  therein  shall  be  astonished 
at  it.  And  you  will  I  scatter  among  the  nations,  and  I 
will  draw  out  the  sword  after  you  :  and  your  land  shall 
be  a  desolation,  and  your  cities  shall  be  a  waste. 
Then  shall  the  land  enjoy  her  sabbaths,  as  long  as  it 
lieth  desolate,  and  ye  be  in  your  enemies'  land ;  even 
then  shall  the  land  rest,  and  enjoy  her  sabbaths." 

These  facts  make  this  chapter  to  be  an  apologetic  of 
prime  importance.  It  is  this,  because  we  have  here 
evidence  of  foreknowledge,  and  therefore  of  the  super- 
natural inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  in  the 
prophecy  here  recorded.  The  facts  cannot  be  ade- 
quately explained,  either  on  the  supposition  of  fortunate 
guessing  or  of  accidental  coincidence.  It  was  not 
indeed  impossible  to  forecast  on  natural  grounds  that 
Israel  would  become  corrupt,  or  that,  if  so,  they  should 
experience  disaster  in  consequence  of  their  moral  de- 
pravation.    For  God  has  not  one  law  for   Israel  and 

has  materially  increased,  and  is  still  increasing;  a  fact  the  signifi- 
cance of  which  has  been  pointed  out  by  the  present  writer  in  "  The 
Jews;  or,  Prediction  and  Fulfilment"  (New  York,  1883,  pp.  178-83). 


xxvi.]  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT.  531 

another  for  other  nations.  Nor  does  the  argument  rest 
on  the  details  of  these  threatened  judgments,  as  con- 
sisting in  the  sword,  famine,  and  pestilence ;  for  other 
nations  have  experienced  these  calamities,  though, 
indeed,  few  in  equal  measure  with  Israel ;  and  of  these 
one  has  a  natural  dependence  on  another. 

But  setting  aside  these  elements  of  the  prophecy, 
as  of  less  apologetic  significance,  two  particulars  yet 
remain  in  which  this  predicted  experience  has  been 
unique,  and  antecedently  to  the  event  in  so  high  degree 
improbable,  that  we  can  reasonably  think  here  neither 
of  shrewd  human  forecast  nor  of  chance  agreement  of 
prediction  and  fulfilment.  The  one  is  the  predicted 
survival  of  exiled  Israel  as  a  nation  in  the  land  of  their 
enemies,  their  indestructibility  throughout  centuries  of 
unequalled  suffering ;  the  other,  the  extraordinary  fact 
that  their  land,  so  rich  and  fertile,  which  was  at  that 
time  and  for  centuries  afterwards  one  of  the  principal 
highways  of  the  world's  commerce  and  travel,  the 
coveted  possession  of  many  nations  from  a  remote 
antiquity,  should  during  the  whole  period  of  Israel's 
banishment  remain  comparatively  unoccupied  and 
untilled. 

As  regards  the  former  particular,  we  may  search 
history  in  vain  for  a  similar  phenomenon.  Here  is  a 
people  who,  at  their  best,  as  compared  with  many 
other  nations,  such  as  the  Egyptians,  Babylonians, 
and  Romans,  were  few  in  number  and  in  material 
resources  ;  who  now  have  been  scattered  from  their 
land  for  centuries,  crushed  and  oppressed  always,  in 
a  degree  and  for  a  length  of  time  never  experienced  by 
any  other  people ;  yet  never  merging  in  the  nations 
with  whom  they  were  mingled,  or  losing  in  the  least 
their  peculiar  racial  characteristics  and  distinct  national 


532  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS, 

identity.  This,  although  now  for  a  long  time  matter 
of  history,  was  yet,  a  priori,  so  improbable  that  all 
history  records  no  other  instance  of  the  kind ;  and 
yet  all  this  had  to  be  if  those  words  of  ver.  44  were 
to  prove  true :  "  When  they  be  in  the  land  of  their 
enemies,  I  will  not  reject  them,  neither  will  I  abhor 
them,  to  destroy  them  utterly."  With  abundant  reason 
has  Professor  Christlieb  referred  to  this  fact  as  an 
unanswerable  apologetic,  thus:  ''We  point  to  the  people 
of  Israel  as  a  perennial  historical  miracle.  The  con- 
tinued existence  of  this  nation  up  to  the  present  day, 
the  preservation  of  its  national  peculiarities  through- 
out thousands  of  years,  in  spite  of  all  dispersion  and 
oppression,  remains  so  unparalleled  a  phenomenon,  that 
without  the  special  providential  preparation  of  God, 
and  His  constant  interference  and  protection,  it  would 
be  impossible  for  us  to  explain  it.  For  where  else  is 
there  a  people  over  which  such  judgments  have  passed, 
and  yet  not  ended  in  destruction  ?  "  ^ 

No  less  remarkable  and  significant  is  the  long-con- 
tinued depopulation  of  the  land  of  Israel.  For  it  was 
and  is  by  nature  a  richly  fertile  land  ;  and  at  the  time 
of  this  prediction — whether  it  be  assigned  to  an  earlier 
or  a  later  period — it  was  upon  one  of  the  chief  com- 
mercial and  military  routes  of  the  world,  and  its  pos- 
session has  thus  been  an  object  of  ambition  to  all  the 
dominant  nations  of  history.  Surely,  one  would  have 
expected  that  if  Israel  should  be  cast  out  of  such  a 
land,  it  would  at  once  and  always  be  occupied  by  others 
who  should  cultivate  its  proverbially  productive  soil. 
But  it  was  not  to  be  so,  for  it  had  been  otherwise 
written.     And  yet  it  seems  as  if  it  had  scarcely  been 


Modern  Doubt  and  Christian   Belief,"  p.  333. 


xxvi.]  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT.  533 

possible  that  through  all  these  later  centuries  of  the 
history  of  Christendom,  the  land  could  have  thus  lain 
desolate,  except  for  the  so  momentous  discovery  in 
1497  of  the  Cape  route  to  India,  by  which  event — 
which  no  one  could  in  so  remote  days  have  well 
anticipated — the  tide  of  commerce  with  the  East  was 
turned  away  from  Egypt,  Syria,  and  Palestine,  to  the 
Atlantic  and  the  Indian  Oceans ;  so  that  the  land  01 
Israel  was  left,  like  a  city  made  to  stand  solitary  in  a 
desert  by  the  shifting  of  the  channel  of  a  river  ;  and  its 
predicted  desolation  thus  went  on  to  receive  its  most 
complete,  consummate,  and  now  long-realised  fulfilment. 

So,  then,  stands  the  case.  It  is  truly  difficult  to 
understand  how  one  can  fairly  escape  the  inference 
from  these  facts,  namely,  that  they  imply  in  this 
chapter  such  a  prescience  of  the  future  as  is  not 
possible  to  man,  and  therefore  demonstrate  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  must,  in  the  deepest  and  truest  sense, 
have  been  the  author  of  these  predictions  of  the  future 
of  the  chosen  people  and  their  land. 

And  it  is  of  the  very  first  importance,  with  reference 
to  the  controversies  of  our  day  regarding  this  question, 
that  we  note  the  fact  that  the  argument  is  of  such  a 
nature  that  it  is  not  in  the  least  dependent  upon  the 
date  that  any  may  have  assigned  to  the  origin  of  this 
chapter.  Even  though  we  should,  with  Graf  and  Well- 
hausen,  attribute  its  composition  to  exilian  or  post- 
exilian  times,  it  would  still  remain  true  that  the  chapter 
contained  unmistakable  predictions  regarding  the  nation 
and  the  land ;  predictions  which,  if  fulfilled,  no  doubt, 
in  a  degree,  in  the  days  of  the  Babylonian  exile  and  the 
return,  were  yet  to  receive  a  fulfilment  far  more  minute, 
exhaustive,  and  impressive,  in  centuries  which  then 
were  still  in  a  far  distant  future.    But  if  this  be  granted, 


534  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

it  is  plain  that  these  facts  impose  a  limitation  upon  the 
conclusions  of  criticism.  That  only  is  true  science 
which  takes  into  view  all  the  facts  with  respect  to  any 
phenomenon  for  which  one  seeks  to  account ;  and  in 
this  case  the  facts  which  are  to  be  explained  by  any 
theory,  are  not  merely  peculiarities  of  style  and  voca- 
bulary, etc.,  but  also  this  phenomenon  of  a  demonstrably 
predictive  element  in  the  chapter ;  a  phenomenon  which 
requires  for  its  explanation  the  assumption  of  a  super- 
natural inspiration  as  one  of  the  factors  in  its  author- 
ship. But  if  this  is  so,  how  can  we  reconcile  with  such 
a  Divine  inspiration  any  theory  which  makes  the  last 
statement  of  the  chapter,  that  *^  these  are  the  statutes 
which  the  Lord  made  ...  in  mount  Sinai  by  the  hand 
of  Moses,"  to  be  untrue,  and  the  preceding  *'  laws  "  to 
be  thus,  in  plain  language,  a  forgery  of  exilian  or 
post-exilian  times  ? 

The  Promised  Restoration. 

xxvi.  40-45. 

"  And  they  shall  confess  their  iniquity,  and  the  iniquity  of  their 
fathers,  in  their  trespass  which  they  trespassed  against  Me,  and  also 
that  because  they  have  walked  contrary  unto  Me,  I  also  walked  con- 
trary unto  them,  and  brought  them  into  the  land  of  their  enemies  :  if 
then  their  uncircumcised  heart  be  humbled,  and  they  then  accept  of 
the  punishment  of  their  iniquity ;  then  will  I  remember  My  covenant 
with  Jacob ;  and  also  My  covenant  with  Isaac,  and  also  My  covenant 
with  Abraham  will  I  remember;  and  I  will  remember  the  land.  The 
land  also  shall  be  left  of  them,  and  shall  enjoy  her  sabbaths,  while  she 
lieth  desolate  without  them  ;  and  they  shall  accept  of  the  punishment 
of  their  iniquity  :  because,  even  because  they  rejected  My  judgments, 
and  their  soul  abhorred  My  statutes.  And  yet  for  all  that,  when  they 
be  in  the  land  of  their  enemies,  I  will  not  reject  them,  neither  will  I 
abhor  them,  to  destroy  them  utterly,  and  to  break  My  covenant  with 
them  :  for  I  am  the  Lord  their  God:  but  I  will  for  their  sakes  remem- 
ber the  covenant  of  their  ancestors,  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt  in  the  sight  of  the  nations,  that  I  might  be  their  God : 
I  am  the  Lord." 


xxvi.]  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT.  535 

This  closing  section  of  this  extraordinary  chapter 
yet  remains  to  be  considered.  It  is  the  most  remark- 
able of  all,  whether  from  a  historical  or  a  religious 
point  of  view.  It  declares  that  even  under  so  extreme 
visitations  of  Divine  wrath,  and  howsoever  long  Israel's 
stubborn  rebellion  and  impenitence  should  continue, 
yet  the  nation  should  never  become  extinct  and  pass 
away.  Very  impressive  are  the  words  (w.  43-45) 
which  emphasise  this  prediction :  "  The  land  also  shall 
be  left  of  them,  and  shall  enjoy  her  sabbaths,  while  she 
lieth  desolate  without  them  ;  and  they  shall  accept  ^  ot 
the  punishment  of  their  iniquity  :  because,  even  because 
they  rejected  My  judgments,  and  their  soul  abhorred 
My  statutes.  And  yet  for  all  that,  when  they  be 
in  the  land  of  their  enemies,  I  will  not  reject  them, 
neither  will  I  abhor  them,  to  destroy  them  utterly, 
and  to  break  My  covenant  with  them :  for  I  am  the 
Lord  their  God  :  but  I  will  for  their  sakes  remember 
the  covenant  of  their  ancestors,  whom  I  brought  forth 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  in  the  sight  of  the  nations, 
that  I  might  be  their  God  :  I  am  the  Lord." 

As  to  what  is  included  in  this  promise  of  everlasting 
covenant  mercy,  we  are  told  explicitly  (ver.  40)^  that  as 
the  final  result  of  these  repeated  and  long-continued 
judgments,  the  children  of  Israel  "  shall  confess  their  in- 
iquity, and  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers,  in  their  trespass 

^  It  is  the  same  Hebrew  word  which  is  rendered  "  enjoy  "  when 
applied  to  the  land  and  "accept"  when  applied  to  Israel  :  it  might 
thus  be  rendered  "enjoy"  in  the  latter  case — "they  shall  enjoy  the 
punishment  of  their  iniquity,"  when  the  words  would  express  a 
severe  irony,  a  figure  of  which  we  have  examples  elsewhere  in  the 
Scriptures. 

*  The  "  if"  which  introduces  ver.  40  in  the  Authorised  version  has 
no  equivalent  in  the  Hebrew,  and  should  therefore  be  omitted,  as  in 
the  revision. 


536  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


which  they  trespassed  "  against  the  Lord.  Also  they 
will  acknowledge  (ver.  41)  that  all  these  calamities  have 
been  sent  upon  them  by  the  Lord ;  that  it  is  because 
they  have  walked  contrary  unto  Him  that  He  has  also 
walked  contrary  unto  them,  and  brought  them  into  the 
land  of  their  enemies.  And  then  follows  the  great 
promise  (vv.  41,  42)  :  ''  If  then  their  uncircumcised 
heart  be  humbled,  and  they  then  accept  of  the  punish- 
ment of  their  iniquity ;  then  will  I  remember  My 
covenant  with  Jacob  ;  and  also  My  covenant  with  Isaac, 
and  also  My  covenant  with  Abraham  will  I  remember  ; 
and  I  will  remember  the  land." 

These  words  are  very  full  and  explicit.  That  they 
have  had  already  a  partial  and  inadequate  fulfilment 
in  the  restoration  from  Babylon,  and  the  spiritual 
quickening  by  which  it  was  accompanied,  is  not  to  be 
denied.  But  one  only  needs  to  refer  to  the  covenants 
to  which  reference  is  made,  and  especially  the  covenant 
with  Abraham,  as  recorded  in  the  book  of  Genesis,^  to 
see  that  by  no  possibility  can  that  Babylonian  restora- 
tion be  said  to  have  exhausted  this  prophecy.  Since 
those  earlier  days  Israel  has  again  forsaken  the  Lord, 
and  committed  the  greatest  of  all  their  national  sins  in 
the  rejection  and  crucifixion  of  the  promised  Messiah  ; 
and  therefore,  again,  according  to  the  threat  of  the 
earlier  part  of  this  chapter,  they  have  been  cast  out 
of  their  land  and  scattered  among  the  nations,  and  the 
land,  again,  for  centuries  has  been  left  a  desolation. 
But  for  all  this,  God's  covenant  with  Israel  has  not 
lapsed,  nor,  as  we  are  here  formally  assured,  can  it  ever 
lapse.  To  imagine,  with  some,  that  because  of  the  new 
dispensation  of  grace  to  the  Gentiles  which  has  come 

*  See  Gen.  xii.  1-3  ;  xiii.  14-17  ;  xv.  5-21  ;  xvii.  2-1 1 ;  xxii.  15-18. 


xxvi.]  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT.  537 

in,  therefore  the  promises  of  this  covenant  have  become 
void,  is  a  mistake  which  is  fatal  to  all  right  under- 
standing of  the  prophetic  word.  As  for  the  spiritual 
blessing  of  true  repentance  and  a  national  turning  unto 
God,  Zechariah,  after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  repre- 
sents the  prediction  as  yet  to  have  a  larger  and  far 
more  blessed  fulfilment,  in  a  day  which,  beyond  all 
controversy,  has  never  yet  risen  on  the  world.  For 
it  is  written  (Zech.  xii.  8-14;  xiii.  i)  :  "In  that 
day  ...  I  will  pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and 
upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace 
and  of  supplication ;  and  they  shall  look  unto  Me  whom 
they  have  pierced  :  and  they  shall  mourn  for  Him,  as 
one  mourneth  for  his  only  son,  and  shall  be  in  bitter- 
ness for  Him,  as  one  that  is  in  bitterness  for  his 
firstborn ;  ...  all  the  families  that  remain,  every 
family  apart,  and  their  wives  apart.  In  that  day  there 
shall  be  a  fountain  opened  to  the  house  of  David  and 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  for  sin  and  for  unclean- 
ness."  And  that  this  great  promise,  which  implies  by 
its  very  terms  the  previous  '^piercing"  of  the  Messiah, 
is  still  valid  for  the  nation  in  the  new  dispensation,  is 
expressly  testified  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  formally 
teaches,  with  regard  to  Israel,  that  "  God  did  not  cast 
off  His  people  which  He  foreknew;"  that  "  the  gifts  and 
calling  of  God  are  without  repentance ; "  and  that  there- 
fore the  days  are  surely  coming  when  "all  Israel 
shall  be  saved  "  (Rom.  xi.  2,  29,  26). 

And  while  nothing  is  said  in  this  chapter  of  Leviticus 
as  to  the  relation  of  this  future  repentance  of  Israel  to 
the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  we  only  speak 
according  to  the  express  teaching  both  of  the  later 
prophets  and  of  the  apostles,  when  we  add  that  we  are 
not  to  think  of  this  covenant  of  God  concerning  Israel 


538  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

as  of  little  consequence  to  our  faith  and  hope  as 
Christians.  For  we  are  plainly  taught,  with  regard  to 
the  present  exclusion  and  impenitence  of  Israel  (Rom. 
xi.  15),  that  "the  receiving  of  them"  again  shall  be  as 
"  life  from  the  dead  ;  "  which,  again,  is  only  what  long 
before  had  been  declared  in  the  Old  Testament  (Psalm 
cii.  13-16) ;  that  when  God  shall  arise  and  have  mercy 
upon  Zion,  and  the  set  time  to  have  pity  upon  her 
shall  come,  the  nations  shall  fear  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
and  all  the  kings  of  the  earth  His  glory. 

And  while  we  may  grant  that  the  matter  is  in  itself 
of  less  moment,  it  is  yet  of  importance  to  observe  that 
the  very  covenant  which  promises  spiritual  mercy  to 
the  people,  as  explicitly  assures  us  (ver.  42)  that,  when 
Israel  confesses  its  sin,  God  "  will  remember  the  land  " 
as  well  as  the  people.  All  that  has  been  said  for  the 
present  and  unchangeable  validity  of  the  former  part  of 
this  promise,  is  of  necessity  true  for  this  latter  part 
also.  To  affirm  the  former,  and  on  that  ground  main- 
tain the  faith  and  expectation  of  the  future  repentance 
of  Israel,  and  yet  deny  the  latter  part  of  this  promise, 
which  is  no  less  verbally  explicit,  regarding  the  land 
of  Israel,  is  an  inconsistency  of  interpretation  which  is 
as  astonishing  as  it  is  common.  For  the  restoration 
of  the  scattered  nation  to  their  land  is  repeatedly  pro- 
mised, as  here,  in  connection  with,  and  yet  in  clear 
distinction  from,  their  conversion,  by  both  the  pre-  and 
post-exihan  prophets.  And  if,  for  reasons  not  hard  to 
discover,  the  promise  concerning  the  land  is  not  in  so 
many  words  repeated  in  the  New  Testament,  its  future 
fulfilment  is  yet,  to  say  the  least,  distinctly  assumed 
in  the  prediction  of  Christ  (Luke  xxi.  24),  that  Israel, 
because  of  their  rejection  of  Him,  should  be  "  led  captive 
into  all  the  nations,  and  Jerusalem  be  trodden  down  of 


xxvi.]  PROMISES  AND  THREATS  OF  THE  COVENANT.  539 

the  Gentiles/' — not  for  ever,  but  only — "  until  the  times 
of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled."  Surely  these  words  of  our 
Lord  imply  that,  whenever  these  ^'  times  of  the  Gentiles  " 
shall  have  run  their  course,  their  present  domination 
over  the  Holy  City  and  the  Holy  Land  shall  end. 

Nor  is  such  a  restoration  of  Israel  to  their  land,  with 
all  that  it  implies,  inconsistent,  as  some  have  urged, 
with  the  spirit  and  principles  of  the  Gospel.  Many  a 
Gentile  nation  is  greatly  favoured  of  the  Lord,  and,  as 
one  mark  of  that  favour,  is  permitted  to  abide  in  peace 
and  prosperity  in  their  own  land.  Why  should  it  be 
any  more  alien  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel  that  penitent 
Israel  should  be  blessed  in  like  manner,  and,  upon  their 
turning  unto  the  Lord,  also,  like  many  other  nations, 
be  permitted  to  dwell  in  peace  and  safety  in  that  land 
which  lies  almost  empty  and  desolate  for  them  until 
this  day  ?  And  if  it  be  urged  that,  admitting  this 
interpretation,  we  shall  also  be  obliged  to  admit  that 
Israel  is  in  the  future  to  be  exalted  to  a  position  of 
pre-eminence  among  the  nations,  which,  again,  is  incon- 
sistent, it  is  said,  with  the  principles  of  the  Gospel 
dispensation,  we  must  again  deny  this  last  assertion, 
and  for  a  similar  reason.  If  not  inconsistent  with  the 
Gospel  that  the  British  nation,  for  example,  should 
to-day  hold  a  position  of  exceptional  eminence  and 
world-wide  influence  among  the  nations,  how  can  it  be 
inconsistent  with  the  Gospel  that  Israel,  when  repentant 
before  God,  should  be  in  like  manner  exalted  of  Him 
to  national  eminence  and  glory  ? 

While  in  itself  this  question  may  be  of  little  conse- 
quence, yet  in  another  aspect  it  is  of  no  small  moment 
that  we  steadfastly  affirm  the  permanent  validity  of 
this  part  of  the  promise  of  the  covenant  with  Israel  as 
given  in  this  chapter.     For  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 


540  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

that  the  logic  and  the  exegesis  which  make  the  promise 
to  have  become  void  with  regard  to  Israel's  land,  if 
accepted,  would  equally  justify  one  in  affirming  the 
abrogation  of  the  promise  of  Israel's  final  repentance, 
if  the  exigencies  of  any  eschatological  theory  should 
seem  to  require  it.  Either  both  parts  of  this  promise 
in  ver.  42  are  still  valid,  or  neither  is  now  valid ;  and 
if  either  is  still  in  force,  the  other  is  in  force  also. 
These  two,  the  promise  concerning  the  people,  and  the 
promise  concerning  the  land,  stand  or  fall  together 


CHAPTER   XXVIII. 

CONCERNING   VOWS. 
Lev.  xxvii.  I -34. 

AS  already  remarked,  the  book  of  Leviticus  certainly 
seems,  at  first  sight,  to  be  properly  completed 
with  the  previous  chapter ;  and  hence  it  has  been  not 
unnaturally  suggested  that  this  chapter  has  by  some 
editor  been  transferred,  either  of  intention  or  accident, 
from  an  earlier  part  of  the  book — as,  e.g,j  after  chapter 
XXV.  The  question  is  one  of  no  importance  ;  but  it  is 
not  hard  to  perceive  a  good  reason  for  the  position  of 
this  chapter  after  not  only  the  rest  of  the  law,  but  also 
after  the  words  of  promise  and  threatening  which  con- 
clude and  seal  its  prescriptions.  For  what  has  preceded 
has  concerned  duties  of  religion  which  were  obHgatory 
upon  all  Israelites ;  the  regulations  of  this  chapter, 
on  the  contrary,  have  to  do  with  special  vows,  which 
were  obligatory  on  no  one,  and  concerning  which  it  is 
expressly  said  (Deut.  xxiii.  22)  :  "  If  thou  shalt  for- 
bear to  vow,  it  shall  be  no  sin  in  thee."  To  these, 
therefore,  the  promises  and  threats  of  the  covenant 
could  not  directly  apply,  and  therefore  the  law  which 
regulates  the  making  and  keeping  of  vows  is  not  unfitly 
made  to  follow,  as  an  appendix,  the  other  legislation 
of  the  book. 

Howsoever  the  making  of  vows  be  not  obligatory  as 
a  necessary  part  of  the  religious  life,  yet,  in  all  ages 


542  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

and  in  all  religions,  a  certain  instinct  of  the  heart  has 
often  led  persons,  either  in  order  to  procure  something 
from  God,  or  as  a  thank-offering  for  some  special  favour 
received,  or  else  as  a  spontaneous  expression  of  love 
to  God,  to  "  make  a  special  vow."  But  just  in  propor- 
tion to  the  sincerity  and  depth  of  the  devout  feeling 
which  suggests  such  special  acts  of  worship  and  devo- 
tion, will  be  the  desire  to  act  in  the  vow,  as  in  all  else, 
according  to  the  will  of  God,  so  that  the  vow  may  be 
accepted  of  Him.  What  then  may  one  properly  dedicate 
to  God  in  a  vow  ?  And,  again,  if  by  any  stress  of 
circumstances  a  man  feels  compelled  to  seek  release 
from  a  vow,  is  he  at  liberty  to  recall  it  ?  and  if  so, 
then  under  what  conditions  ?  Such  are  the  questions 
which  in  this  chapter  were  answered  for  Israel. 

As  for  the  matter  of  a  vow,  it  is  ruled  that  an 
Israelite  might  thus  consecrate  unto  the  Lord  either 
persons,  or  of  the  beasts  of  his  possession,  or  his  dwell- 
ing, or  the  right  in  any  part  of  his  land.  On  the  other 
hand,  "  the  firstling  among  beasts "  (vv.  26,  27),  any 
"devoted  thing"  (vv.  28,  29),  and  the  tithe  (vv.  30-33) 
might  not  be  made  the  object  of  a  special  vow,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  on  various  grounds  each  of  these 
belonged  unto  the  Lord  as  His  due  already.  Under 
each  of  these  special  heads  is  given  a  schedule  of  valua- 
tion, according  to  which,  if  a  man  should  wish  for  any 
reason  to  redeem  again  for  his  own  use  that  which, 
either  by  prior  Divine  claim  or  by  a  special  vow,  had 
been  dedicated  to  the  Lord,  he  might  be  permitted  to 
do  so. 

Of  the  Vowing  of  Persons. 

xxvii.  1-8. 

"And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  When  a  man  shall  accomplish  a  vow, 


xxvii.  1-34.1  CONCERNING   VOWS.  543 

the  persons  shall  be  for  the  Lord  by  thy  estimation.  And  thy  esti- 
mation shall  be  of  the  male  from  twenty  years  old  even  unto  sixty 
years  old,  even  thy  estimation  shall  be  fifty  shekels  of  silver,  after 
the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary.  And  if  it  be  a  female,  then  thy  estima- 
tion shall  be  thirty  shekels.  And  if  it  be  from  five  years  old  even 
unto  twenty  years  old,  then  thy  estimation  shall  be  of  the  male 
twenty  shekels,  and  for  the  female  ten  shekels.  And  if  it  be  from  a 
month  old  even  unto  five  years  old,  then  thy  estimation  shall  be  of 
the  male  five  shekels  of  silver,  and  for  the  female  thy  estimation  shall 
be  three  shekels  of  silver.  And  if  it  be  from  sixty  years  old  and 
upward ;  if  it  be  a  male,  then  thy  estimation  shall  be  fifteen  shekels, 
and  for  the  female  ten  shekels.  But  if  he  be  poorer  than  thy  estima- 
tion, then  he  shall  be  set  before  the  priest,  and  the  priest  shall  value 
him  ;  according  to  the  ability  of  him  that  vowed  shall  the  priest 
value  him." 


First,  we  have  the  law  (vv.  2-8)  concerning  the 
vowing  of  persons.  In  this  case  it  does  not  appear 
that  it  was  intended  that  the  personal  vow  should  be 
fulfilled  by  the  actual  devotement  of  the  service  of  the 
person  to  the  sanctuary.  For  such  service  abundant 
provision  was  made  by  the  separation  of  the  Levites, 
and  it  can  hardly  be  imagined  that  under  ordinary 
conditions  it  would  be  possible  to  find  special  occupa- 
tion about  the  sanctuary  for  all  who  might  be  prompted 
thus  to  dedicate  themselves  by  a  vow  to  the  Lord. 
Moreover,  apart  from  this,  we  read  here  of  the  vowing 
to  the  Lord  of  young  children,  from  five  years  of  age 
down  to  one  month,  from  whom  tabernacle  service  is 
not  to  be  thought  of. 

The  vow  which  dedicated  the  person  to  the  Lord 
was  therefore  usually  discharged  by  the  simple  ex- 
pedient of  a  commutation  price  to  be  paid  into  the 
treasury  of  the  sanctuary,  as  the  symbolic  equivalent 
of  the  value  of  his  self-dedication.  The  persons  thus 
consecrated  are  said  to  be  ''for  the  Lord,"  and  this 
fact  was  to  be  recognised  and  their  special  dedication  to 


544  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

Him  discharged  by  the  payment  of  a  certain  sum  of 
money.  The  amount  to  be  paid  in  each  instance  is 
fixed  by  the  law  before  us,  with  an  evident  reference 
to  the  labour  value  of  the  person  thus  given  to  the 
Lord  in  the  vow,  as  determined  by  two  factors — the 
sex  and  the  age.  Inasmuch  as  the  woman  is  inferior 
in  strength  to  the  man,  she  is  rated  lower  than  he  is. 
As  affected  by  age,  persons  vowed  are  distributed  into 
four  classes  :  the  lowest,  from  one  month  up  to  five 
years ;  the  second,  from  five  years  to  twenty ;  the 
third,  from  twenty  to  sixty ;  the  fourth,  from  sixty 
years  of  age  and  upwards. 

The  law  takes  first  (vv.  3,  4)  the  case  of  persons  in 
the  prime  of  their  working  powers,  from  twenty  to 
sixty  years  old,  for  whom  the  highest  commutation  rate 
is  fixed  ;  namely,  fifty  shekels  for  the  male  and  thirty 
for  a  female,  "  after  the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary,"  i.e.y 
of  full  standard  weight.  If  younger  than  this,  ob- 
viously the  labour  value  of  the  person's  service  would 
be  less ;  it  is  therefore  fixed  (ver.  5)  at  twenty  shekels 
for  the  male  and  ten  for  the  female,  if  the  age  be  from 
five  to  twenty  ;  and  if  the  person  be  over  sixty,  then 
(ver.  7),  as  the  feebleness  of  age  is  coming  on,  the  rate 
is  fifteen  shekels  for  the  male  and  ten  for  the  female.^ 
In  the  case  of  a  child  from  one  month  to  five  years 
old,  the  rate  is  fixed  (ver.  6)  at  five,  or,  in  a  female, 
then   at  three  shekels.     In   this   last   case  it  will   be 

'  These  commutation  rates  are  so  low  that  it  is  plain  that  they 
could  not  have  represented  the  actual  value  of  the  individual's 
labour.  The  highest  sum  which  is  named — fifty  shekels — as  the  rate 
for  a  man  from  twenty  to  sixty  years  of  age,  taking  the  shekel  as 
2s.  3*37<*^.,  or  $0-5474,  would  only  amount  to  ;^5  14s.  0%d.,  or 
127-375.  Even  from  this  alone  it  is  clear  that,  as  stated  above,  the 
chief  reference  in  these  figures  must  have  been  symbolic  of  a  claim 
of  God  upon  the  person,  graded  according  to  his  capacity  for  service. 


xxvii.i-34.]  CONCERNING   VOWS.  545 

observed  that  the  rate  for  the  male  is  the  same  as  that 
appointed  (Numb,  xviii.  15,  16)  for  the  redemption  of 
the  firstborn,  '*  from  a  month  old,"  in  all  cases.  As  in 
that  ordinance,  so  here,  the  payment  was  merely  a 
symbolic  recognition  of  the  special  claim  of  God  on  the 
person,  without  any  reference  to  a  labour  value. 

But  although  the  sum  was  so  small  that  even  at  the 
most  it  could  not  nearly  represent  the  actual  value  of 
the  labour  of  such  as  were  able  to  labour,  yet  one  can 
see  that  cases  might  occur  when  a  man  might  be  moved 
to  make  such  a  vow  of  dedication  of  himself  or  of  a 
child  to  the  Lord,  while  he  was  yet  too  poor  to  pay 
even  such  a  small  amount.  Hence  the  kindly  pro- 
vision (ver.  8)  that  if  any  person  be  poorer  than  this 
estimation,  he  shall  not  therefore  be  excluded  from  the 
privilege  of  self-dedication  to  the  Lord,  but  *^  he  shall 
be  set  before  the  priest,  and  the  priest  shall  value  him ; 
according  to  the  ability  of  him  that  vowed  shall  the 
priest  value  him." 

Of  the  Vowing  of  Domestic  Animals. 

xxvii.  9-13. 

"And  if  it  be  a  beast,  whereof  men  offer  an  oblation  unto  the 
Lord,  all  that  any  man  giveth  of  such  unto  the  Lord  shall  be  holy. 
He  shall  not  alter  it,  nor  change  it,  a  good  for  a  bad,  or  a  bad  for  a 
good  :  and  if  he  shall  at  all  change  beast  for  beast,  then  both  it  and 
that  for  which  it  is  changed  shall  be  holy.  And  if  it  be  any  unclean 
beast,  of  which  they  do  not  offer  an  oblation  unto  the  Lord,  then  he 
shall  set  the  beast  before  the  priest :  and  the  priest  shall  value  it, 
whether  it  be  good  or  bad  :  as  thou  the  priest  valuest  it,  so  shall  it 
be.  But  if  he  will  indeed  redeem  it,  then  he  shall  add  the  fifth  part 
thereof  unto  thy  estimation." 

This  next  section  concerns  the  vowing  to  the  Lord  of 
domestic  animals  (vv.  9-13).  If  the  animal  thus  dedicated 
to  the  Lord  were  such  as  could  be  used  in  sacrifice, 

35 


546  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

then  the  animal  itself  was  taken  for  the  sanctuary 
service,  and  the  vow  was  unalterable  and  irrevocable. 
If,  however,  the  animal  vowed  was  '^  any  unclean 
beast,"  then  the  priest  (ver.  12)  was  to  set  a  price 
upon  it,  according  to  its  value  ;  for  which,  we  may 
infer,  it  was  to  be  sold  and  the  proceeds  devoted  to 
the  sanctuary. 

In  this  case,  the  person  who  had  vowed  the  animal 
was  allowed  to  redeem  it  to  himself  again  (ver.  13) 
by  payment  of  this  estimated  price  and  one-fifth  ad- 
ditional, a  provision  which  was  evidently  intended  to 
be  of  the  nature  of  a  fine,  and  to  be  a  check  upon  the 
making  of  rash  vows. 

Of  the  Vowing  of  Houses  and  Fields. 

xxvii.  14-25. 

"And  when  a  man  shall  sanctify  his  house  to  be  holy  unto  the 
Lord,  then  the  priest  shall  estimate  it,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad : 
as  the  priest  shall  estimate  it,  so  shall  it  stand.  And  if  he  that 
sanctified  it  will  redeem  his  house,  then  he  shall  add  the  fifth  part 
of  the  money  of  thy  estimation  unto  it,  and  it  shall  be  his.  And  if  a 
man  shall  sanctify  unto  the  Lord  part  of  the  field  of  his  possession,  then 
thy  estimation  shall  be  according  to  the  sowing  thereof:  the  sowing 
of  a  homer  of  barley  shall  be  valued  at  fifty  shekels  of  silver.  If  he 
sanctify  his  field  from  the  year  of  jubilee,  according  to  thy  estimation 
it  shall  stand.  But  if  he  sanctify  his  field  after  the  jubilee,  then  the 
priest  shall  reckon  unto  him  the  money  according  to  the  years  that 
remain  unto  the  year  of  jubilee,  and  an  abatement  shall  be  made  from 
thy  estimation.  And  if  he  that  sanctified  the  field  will  indeed  redeem 
it,  then  he  shall  add  the  fifth  part  of  the  money  of  thy  estimation  unto 
it,  and  it  shall  be  assured  to  him.  And  if  he  will  not  redeem  the 
field,  or  if  he  have  sold  the  field  to  another  man,  it  shall  not  be 
redeemed  any  more :  but  the  field,  when  it  goeth  out  in  the  jubilee, 
shall  be  holy  unto  the  Lord,  as  a  field  devoted  ;  the  possession  thereof 
shall  be  the  priest's.  And  if  he  sanctify  unto  the  Lord  a  field  which 
he  hath  bought,  which  is  not  of  the  field  of  his  possession  ;  then  the 
priest  shall  reckon  unto  him  the  worth  of  thy  estimation  unto  the 
year  of  jubilee:  and  he  shall  give  thine  estimation  in  that  day,  as  a 


xxvii.i-34.]  CONCERNING   VOWS.  547 

holy  thing  unto  the  Lord.  In  the  year  of  jubilee  the  field  shall  return 
unto  him  of  whom  it  was  bought,  even  to  him  to  whom  the  possession 
of  the  land  belongeth.  And  all  thy  estimations  shall  be  according  to 
the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary :  twenty  gerahs  shall  be  the  shekel." 

The  law  regarding  the  consecration  of  a  man's  house 
unto  the  Lord  by  a  vow  (vv.  14,  15)  is  very  simple. 
The  priest  is  to  estimate  its  value,  without  right  of 
appeal.  Apparently,  the  man  might  still  live  in  it,  if 
he  desired,  but  only  as  one  living  in  a  house  belonging 
to  another ;  presumably,  a  rental  was  to  be  paid,  on 
the  basis  of  the  priest's  estimation  of  value,  into  the 
sanctuary  treasury.  If  the  man  wished  again  to 
redeem  it,  then,  as  in  the  case  of  the  beast  that  was 
vowed,  he  must  pay  into  the  treasury  the  estimated 
value  of  the  house,  with  the  addition  of  one-fifth. 

In  the  case  of  the  "  sanctifying "  or  dedication  of  a 
field  by  a  special  vow  two  cases  might  arise,  which 
are  dealt  with  in  succession.  The  first  case  (vv.  16- 
21)  was  the  dedication  to  the  Lord  of  a  field  which 
belonged  to  the  Israelite  by  inheritance  ;  the  second 
(vv.  22-24),  that  of  one  which  had  come  to  him  by 
purchase.  In  the  former  case,  the  priest  was  to  fix  a 
price  upon  the  field  on  the  basis  of  fifty  shekels  for  so 
much  land  as  would  be  sown  with  a  homer — about 
eight  bushels— of  barley.  In  case  the  dedication  took 
effect  from  the  year  of  jubilee,  this  full  price  was  to 
be  paid  into  the  Lord's  treasury  for  the  field ;  but  if 
from  a  later  year  in  the  cycle,  then  the  rate  was  to  be 
diminished  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  years  of  the 
jubilee  period  which  might  have  already  passed  at  the 
date  of  the  vow.  Inasmuch  as  in  the  case  of  a  field 
which  had  been  purchased,  it  was  ordered  that  the 
price  of  the  estimation  should  be  paid  down  to  the 
priest  "  in  that  day "  (ver.  23)  in  which  the  appraisal 


548  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


was  made,  it  would  appear  as  if,  in  the  present  case, 
the  man  was  allowed  to  pay  it  annually,  a  shekel  for 
each  year  of  the  jubilee  period,  or  by  instalments 
otherwise,  as  he  might  choose,  as  a  periodic  recogni- 
tion of  the  special  claim  of  the  Lord  upon  that  field,  in 
consequence  of  his  vow.  Redemption  of  the  field  from 
the  obligation  of  the  vow  was  permitted  under  the 
condition  of  the  fifth  added  to  the  priest's  estimation, 
e.g.  on  the  payment  of  sixty  instead  of  fifty  shekels 
(ver.  19). 

If,  however,  without  having  thus  redeemed  the  field, 
the  man  who  vowed  should  sell  it  to  another  man,  it  is 
ordered  that  the  field,  which  otherwise  would  revert  to 
him  again  in  full  right  of  usufruct  when  the  jubilee 
year  came  round,  should  be  forfeited  ;  so  that  when 
the  jubilee  came  the  exclusive  right  of  the  field  would 
henceforth  belong  to  the  priest,  as  in  the  case  of  a 
field  devoted  by  the  ban.  The  intention  of  this  regula- 
tion is  evidently  penal ;  for  the  field,  during  the  time 
covered  by  the  vow,  was  in  a  special  sense  the  Lord's ; 
and  the  man  had  the  use  of  it  for  himself  only  upon 
condition  of  a  certain  annual  payment;  to  sell  it, 
therefore,  during  that  time,  was,  in  fact,  from  the 
legal  point  of  view,  to  sell  property,  absolute  right  in 
which  he  had  by  his  vow  renounced  in  favour  of  the 
Lord. 

The  case  of  the  dedication  in  a  vow  of  a  field 
belonging  to  a  man,  not  as  a  paternal  inheritance,  but 
by  purchase  (vv.  22-24),  only  differed  from  the  former 
in  that,  as  already  remarked,  immediate  payment  in 
full  of  the  sum  at  which  it  was  estimated  was  made 
obligatory ;  when  the  jubilee  year  came,  the  field 
reverted  to  the  original  owner,  according  to  the  law 
(xxv.    28).      The   reason   for    thus   insisting   on    full 


xxvii.i-34.]  CONCERNING   VOWS.  549 

immediate  payment,  in  the  case  of  the  dedication  of  a 
field  acquired  by  purchase,  is  plain,  when  we  refer  to 
the  law  (xxv.  25),  according  to  which  the  original 
owner  had  the  right  of  redemption  guaranteed  to  him 
at  any  time  before  the  jubilee.  If,  in  the  case  of  such 
a  dedicated  field,  any  part  of  the  amount  due  to  the 
sanctuary  were  still  unpaid,  obviously  this,  as  a  lien 
upon  the  land,  would  stand  in  the  way  of  such 
redemption.  The  regulation  of  immediate  payment 
is  therefore  intended  to  protect  the  original  owner's 
right  to  redeem  the  field. 

Ver.  25  lays  down  the  general  principle  that  in  all 
these  estimations  and  commutations  the  shekel  must 
be  "  the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary,"  twenty  gerahs  to  the 
shekel ; — words  which  are  not  to  be  understood  as 
pointing  to  the  existence  of  two  distinct  shekels  as 
current,  but  simply  as  meaning  that  the  shekel  must 
be  of  full  weight,  such  as  only  could  pass  current  in 
transactions  with  the  sanctuary. 

The  ^*Vow"  in  New  Testament  Ethics. 

Not  without  importance  is  the  question  whether  the 
vow,  as  brought  before  us  here,  in  the  sense  of  a 
voluntary  promise  to  God  of  something  not  due  to  Him 
by  the  law,  has,  of  right,  a  place  in  New  Testament 
ethics  and  practical  life.  It  is  to  be  observed  in  ap- 
proaching this  question,  that  the  Mosaic  law  here  simply 
deals  with  a  religious  custom  which  it  found  prevailing, 
and  while  it  gives  it  a  certain  tacit  sanction,  yet  neither 
here  or  elsewhere  ever  recommends  the  practice  ;  nor 
does  the  whole  Old  Testament  represent  God  as  in- 
fluenced by  such  a  voluntary  promise,  to  do  something 
which  otherwise  He  would  not  have  done.  At  the 
same  time,  inasmuch  as  the  religious  impulse  which 


550  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


prompts  to  the  vow,  howsoever  liable  to  lead  to  an 
abuse  of  the  practice,  may  be  in  itself  right,  Moses 
takes  the  matter  in  hand,  as  in  this  chapter  and 
elsewhere,  and  deals  with  it  simply  in  an  educational 
way.  If  a  man  will  vow,  while  it  is  not  forbidden, 
he  is  elsewhere  (Deut.  xxiii.  22)  reminded  that  there 
is  no  special  merit  in  it ;  if  he  forbear,  he  is  no 
worse  a  man. 

Further,  the  evident  purpose  of  these  regulations  is  to 
teach  that,  whereas  it  must  in  the  nature  of  the  case  be 
a  very  serious  thing  to  enter  into  a  voluntary  engagement 
of  anything  to  the  holy  God,  it  is  not  to  be  done  hastily 
and  rashly ;  hence  a  check  is  put  upon  such  incon- 
siderate promising,  by  the  refusal  of  the  law  to  release 
from  the  voluntary  obligation,  in  some  cases,  upon  any 
terms  ;  and  by  its  refusal,  in  any  case,  to  release  except 
under  the  condition  of  a  very  material  fine  for  breach 
of  promise.  It  was  thus  taught  clearly  that  if  men 
made  promises  to  God,  they  must  keep  them.  The 
spirit  of  these  regulations  has  been  precisely  expressed 
by  the  Preacher  (Eccl.  v.  5,  6)  :  "  Better  is  it  that  thou 
shouldest  not  vow,  than  that  thou  shouldest  vow  and 
not  pay.  Suffer  not  thy  mouth  to  cause  thy  flesh  to 
sin  ;  neither  say  thou  before  the  messenger  [of  God],^ 
that  it  was  an  error :  wherefore  should  God  be  angry 
at  thy  voice,  and  destroy  the  work  of  thine  hands  ?  " 
Finally,  in  the  careful  guarding  of  the  practice  by  the 
penalty  attached  also  to  change  or  substitution  in  a 
thing  vowed,  or  to  selling  that  which  had  been  vowed 
to  God,  as  if  it  were  one's  own  ;  and,  last  of  all,  by 

*  So  certainly  should  we  render  instead  of  "  angel,"  in  accordance 
with  the  suggestion  of  the  margin  (R.V.).  The  reference  is  to  the 
priest,  as  Mai.  ii.  7  makes  very  clear :  "  He  [the  priest]  is  the 
messenger  of  the  Lord." 


xx\ai.  1-34.]  CONCERNING   VOWS.  551 

insisting  that  the  full-weight  shekel  of  the  sanctuary- 
should  be  made  the  standard  in  all  the  appraisals 
involved  in  the  vow, — the  law  kept  steadily  and  un- 
compromisingly before  the  conscience  the  absolute 
necessity  of  being  strictly  honest  with  God. 

But  in  all  this  there  is  nothing  which  necessarily 
passes  over  to  the  new  dispensation,  except  the  moral 
principles  which  are  assumed  in  these  regulations.  A 
hasty  promise  to  God,  in  an  inconsiderate  spirit,  even 
of  that  which  ought  to  be  freely  promised  Him,  is  sin, 
as  much  now  as  then ;  and,  still  more,  the  breaking  of 
any  promise  to  Him  when  once  made.  So  we  may  take 
hence  to  ourselves  the  lesson  of  absolute  honesty  in  all 
our  dealing  with  God, — a  lesson  not  less  needed  now 
than  then. 

Yet  this  does  not  touch  the  central  question :  Has 
the  vow,  in  the  sense  above  defined — namely,  the  pro- 
mise to  God  of  something  not  due  to  Him  in  the  law — 
a  place  in  New  Testament  ethics  ?  It  is  true  that  it 
is  nowhere  forbidden  ;  but  as  little  is  it  approved.  The 
reference  of  our  Lord  (Matt.  xv.  5,  6)  to  the  abuse  of 
the  vow  by  the  Pharisees  to  justify  neglect  of  parental 
claims  does  not  imply  the  propriety  of  vows  at 
present ;  for  the  old  dispensation  was  then  still  in  force. 
The  vows  of  Paul  (Acts  xviii.  18  ;  xxi.  24-26)  apparently 
refer  to  the  vow  of  a  Nazarite,  and  in  no  case  present 
a  binding  example  for  us,  inasmuch  as  they  are  but 
illustrations  of  his  frequent  conformity  to  Jewish  usages 
in  things  involving  no  sin,  in  which  he  became  a  Jew 
that  he  might  gain  the  Jews.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
New  Testament  conception  of  Christian  life  and  duty 
seems  clearly  to  leave  no  room  for  a  voluntary  promise 
to  God  of  what  is  not  due,  seeing  that,  through  the 
transcendent  obligation   of  grateful  love   to  the  Lord 


552  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

for  His  redeeming  love,  there  is  no  possible  degree  of 
devotement  of  self  or  of  one's  substance  which  could 
be  regarded  as  not  already  God's  due.  "  He  died  for 
all,  that  they  which  live  should  no  longer  live  unto 
themselves,  but  unto  Him  who  for  their  sakes  died  and 
rose  again."  The  vow,  in  the  sense  brought  belore 
us  in  this  chapter,  is  essentially  correlated  to  a  legal 
system  such  as  the  Mosaic,  in  which  dues  to  God  are 
prescribed  by  rule.  In  New  Testament  ethics,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  those  of  the  Old,  we  must  therefore 
conclude  that  for  the  vow  there  is  no  logical  place. 

The  question  is  not  merely  speculative  and  un- 
practical. In  fact,  we  here  come  upon  one  of  the 
fundamental  points  of  difference  between  Romish  and 
Protestant  ethics.  For  it  is  the  Romish  doctrine  that, 
besides  such  works  as  are  essential  to  a  state  of  salva- 
tion, which  are  by  God  made  obhgatory  upon  all,  there 
are  other  works  which,  as  Rome  regards  the  matter, 
are  not  commanded,  but  are  only  made  matters  of 
Divine  counsel,  in  order  to  the  attainment,  by  means 
of  their  observance,  of  a  higher  type  of  Christian  life. 
Such  works  as  these,  unlike  the  former  class,  because 
not  of  universal  obligation,  may  properly  be  made  the 
subject  of  a  vow.  These  are,  especially,  the  voluntary 
renunciation  of  all  property,  abstinence  from  marriage, 
and  the  monastic  life.  But  this  distinction  of  precepts 
and  counsels,  and  the  theory  of  vows,  and  of  works  of 
supererogation,  which  Rome  has  based  upon  it,  all 
Protestants  have  with  one  consent  rejected,  and  that 
with  abundant  reason.  For  not  only  do  we  fail  to  find 
any  justification  for  these  views  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  the  history  of  the  Church  has  shown,  with  what 
should  be  convincing  clearness,  that,  howsoever  we 
may  gladly  recognise  in  the  monastic  communities  of 


1-34.]  CONCERNING   VOWS.  553 


Rome,  in  all  ages,  men  and  women  living  under  special 
vows  of  poverty,  obedience,  and  chastity,  whose  purity 
of  life  and  motive,  and  sincere  devotion  to  the  Lord, 
cannot  be  justly  called  in  question,  it  is  none  the  less 
clear  that,  on  the  whole,  the  tendency  of  the  system 
has  been  toward  either  legalism  on  the  one  hand,  or  a 
sad  Hcentiousness  of  life  on  the  other.  In  this  matter 
of  vows,  as  in  so  many  things,  it  has  been  the  fatal 
error  of  the  Roman  Church  that,  under  the  cover  of  a 
supposed  Old  Testament  warrant,  she  has  returned  to 
"  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements "  which,  according 
to  the  New  Testament,  have  only  a  temporary  use  in 
the  earliest  childhood  of  religious  life. 

Exclusions  from  the  Vow. 

xxvii.  26-33. 

"  Only  the  firstling  among  beasts,  which  is  made  a  firstling  to  the 
Lord,  no  man  shall  sanctify  it ;  whether  it  be  ox  or  sheep,  it  is  the 
Lord's.  And  if  it  be  of  an  unclean  beast,  then  he  shall  ransom  it 
according  to  thine  estimation,  and  shall  add  unto  it  the  fifth  part 
thereof :  or  if  it  be  not  redeemed,  then  it  shall  be  sold  according  to 
thy  estimation.  Notwithstanding,  no  devoted  thing,  that  a  man  shall 
devote  unto  the  Lord  of  all  that  he  hath,  whether  of  man  or  beast,  or 
of  the  field  of  his  possession,  shall  be  sold  or  redeemed :  every 
devoted  thing  is  most  holy  unto  the  Lord.  None  devoted,  which 
shall  be  devoted  of  men,  shall  be  ransomed  ;  he  shall  surely  be  put  to 
death.  And  all  the  tithe  of  the  land,  whether  of  the  seed  of  the  land, 
or  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree,  is  the  Lord's:  it  is  holy  unto  the  Lord. 
And  if  a  man  will  redeem  aught  of  his  tithe,  he  shall  add  unto  it  the 
fifth  part  thereof.  And  all  the  tithe  of  the  herd  or  the  flock,  whatso- 
ever passeth  under  the  rod,  the  tenth  shall  be  holy  unto  the  Lord. 
He  shall  not  search  whether  it  be  good  or  bad,  neither  shall  he  change 
it :  and  if  he  change  it  at  all,  then  both  it  and  that  for  which  it  is 
changed  shall  be  holy ;  it  shall  not  be  redeemed." 

The  remaining  verses  of  this  chapter  specify  three 
classes  of  property  which  could  not  be  dedicated  by  a 
special  vow,  namely,  *'  the  firstling  among  beasts  "  (ver. 


554  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

26);  any  **  devoted  thing"  (vv.  28,  29),  i.e.,  anything 
which  had  been  devoted  to  the  Lord  by  the  ban — as, 
e.g.,  all  the  persons  and  property  in  the  city  of  Jericho 
by  Joshua  (vii.  17);  and,  lastly,  ^'the  tithe  of  the 
land  "  (ver.  30).  The  reason  for  prohibiting  the  vowing 
of  any  of  these  is  in  every  case  one  and  the  same  ; 
either  by  the  law  or  by  a  previous  personal  act  they 
already  belonged  to  the  Lord.  To  devote  them  in  a 
vow  would  therefore  be  to  vow  to  the  Lord  that  over 
which  one  had  no  right.  As  for  the  firstborn,  the  Lord 
had  declared  His  everlasting  claim  on  these  at  the  time 
of  the  Exodus  (Exod.  .xiii.  12-15);  ^^  vow  to  give  the 
Lord  His  own,  had  been  absurd.  To  the  law  previously 
given,  however,  concerning  the  firstling  of  unclean 
beasts  (Exod.  xiii.  13),  it  is  here  added  that,  if  a 
man  wish  to  redeem  such  a  firstling,  the  same  law 
shall  apply  as  in  the  redemption  of  what  has  been 
vowed ;  namely,  the  priest  was  to  appraise  it,  and  then 
the  man  whose  it  had  been  might  redeem  it  by  the 
payment  of  the  amount  thus  fixed,  increased  by  one- 
fifth. 

The  Law  of  the  Ban. 

xxvii.  28,  29. 

"  Notwithstanding,  no  devoted  thing,  that  a  man  shall  devote  unto 
the  Lord  of  all  that  he  hath,  whether  of  man  or  beast,  or  of  the  field 
of  his  possession,  shall  be  sold  or  redeemed  :  ever}'  devoted  thing  is 
most  holy  unto  the  Lord.  None  devoted,  which  shall  be  devoted  ot 
men,  shall  be  ransomed  ;  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death." 

Neither  could  any  "devoted  thing"  be  given  to  the 
Lord  by  a  vow,  and  for  the  same  reason — that  it  be- 
longed to  Him  already.  But  it  is  added  that,  unlike 
that  which  has  been  vowed,  the  Lord's  firstlings  and 
the  tithes,  that  which  has  been  devoted  may  neither 
be  sold  nor  redeemed.     If  it  be  a  person  which  is  thus 


xxvii.i-34.]  CONCERNING   VOWS.  555 


"  devoted,"  "  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death  "  (ver.  29). 
The  reason  of  this  law  is  found  in  the  nature  of  the 
herem  or  ban.  It  devoted  to  the  Lord  only  such 
persons  and  things  as  were  in  a  condition  of  irreform- 
able  hostility  and  irreconcilable  antagonism  to  the 
kingdom  of  God.  By  the  ban  such  were  turned  over 
to  God,  in  order  to  the  total  nullification  of  their  power 
for  evil ;  by  destroying  whatever  was  capable  of 
destruction,  as  the  persons  and  all  living  things  that 
belonged  to  them ;  and  by  devoting  to  the  Lord's 
service  in  the  sanctuary  and  priesthood  such  of  their 
property  as,  like  silver,  gold,  and  land,  was  in  its 
nature  incapable  of  destruction.  In  such  devoted 
persons  or  things  no  man  therefore  was  allowed  to 
assert  any  personal  claim  or  interest,  such  as  the  right 
of  sale  or  of  redemption  would  imply.  Elsewhere  the 
Israelite  is  forbidden  even  to  desire  the  silver  or  gold 
that  was  on  the  idols  in  devoted  cities  (Deut.  vii.  25), 
or  to  bring  it  into  his  house  or  tent,  on  penalty  of  being 
himself  banned  or  devoted  like  them;  a  threat  which 
was  carried  out  in  the  case  of  Achan  (Josh,  vii.), 
who,  for  appropriating  a  wedge  of  gold  and  a  garment 
which  had  been  devoted,  according  to  the  law  here  and 
elsewhere  declared,  was  summarily  put  to  death. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  fully  into  a  discussion 
of  the  very  grave  questions  which  arise  in  connection 
with  this  law  of  the  ban,  in  which  it  is  ordered  that 
"none  devoted,"  "whether  of  man  or  beast,"  ^' shall  be 
ransomed,"  but  "  shall  be  surely  put  to  death."  The 
most  famihar  instance  of  its  application  is  furnished 
by  the  case  of  the  Canaanitish  cities,  which  Joshua,  in 
accordance  with  this  law  of  Lev.  xxvii.  28,  29,  utterly 
destroyed,  with  their  inhabitants  and  every  living  thing 
that  was  in  them.     There  are  many  sincere  believers 


556  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

in  Christ  who  find  it  almost  impossible  to  believe  that 
it  can  be  true  that  God  commanded  such  a  slaughter 
as  this  ;  and  the  difficulty  well  deserves  a  brief  con- 
sideration. It  may  not  indeed  be  possible  wholly  to 
remove  it  from  every  mind  ;  but  one  may  well  call 
attention,  in  connection  with  these  verses,  to  certain 
considerations  which  should  at  least  suffice  very  greatly 
to  relieve  its  stress. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  imperative  to  remember  that, 
if  we  accept  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  we  have  before 
us  in  this  history,  not  the  government  of  man,  but  the 
government  of  God,  a  true  theocracy.  Now  it  is  ob- 
vious that  if  even  fallible  men  may  be  rightly  granted 
power  to  condemn  men  to  death,  for  the  sake  of  the 
public  good,  much  more  must  this  right  be  conceded, 
and  that  without  any  limitation,  to  the  infinitely  right- 
eous and  infallible  King  of  kings,  if,  in  accord  with  the 
Scripture  declarations,  He  was,  literally  and  really,  the 
political  Head  (if  we  may  be  allowed  the  expression) 
of  the  Israelitish  nation.  Further,  if  this  absolute  right 
of  God  in  matters  of  life  and  death  be  admitted,  as  it 
must  be,  it  is  plain  that  He  may  rightly  delegate  the 
execution  of  His  decrees  to  human  agents.  If  this  right 
is  granted  to  one  of  our  fellow-men,  as  to  a  king  or  a 
magistrate,  much  more  to  God. 

Granting  that  the  theocratic  government  of  Israel 
was  a  historical  fact,  the  only  question  then  remaining 
as  to  the  right  of  the  ban,  concerns  the  justice  of  its 
application  in  particular  cases.  With  regard  to  this, 
we  may  concede  that  it  was  quite  possible  that  men 
might  sometimes  apply  this  law  without  Divine  autho- 
rity ;  but  we  are  not  required  to  defend  such  cases,  if 
any  be  shown,  any  more  than  to  excuse  the  infliction 
of  capital  punishment  in  America  sometimes  by  lynch 


xxvii.  1-34-]  CONCERNING   VOWS,  557 

law.  These  cases  furnish  no  argument  against  its 
infliction  after  due  legal  process,  and  by  legitimate 
governmental  authority.  As  to  the  terrible  execution 
of  this  law  of  the  ban,  in  the  destruction  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Canaanitish  cities,  if  the  fact  of  the 
theocratic  authority  be  granted,  it  is  not  so  difficult  to 
justify  this  as  some  have  imagined.  Nor,  conversely, 
when  the  actual  facts  are  thoroughly  known,  can  the 
truth  of  the  statement  of  the  Scripture  that  God 
commanded  this  terrible  destruction,  be  regarded  as 
irreconcilable  with  those  moral  perfections  which  Scrip- 
ture and  reason  alike  attribute  to  the  Supreme  Being. 

The  researches  and  discoveries  of  recent  years  have 
let  in  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  state  of  society  pre- 
vailing among  those  Canaanitish  tribes  at  the  date  of 
their  destruction ;  and  they  warrant  us  in  saying  that 
in  the  whole  history  of  our  race  it  would  be  hard  to 
point  to  any  civilized  community  which  has  sunken  to 
such  a  depth  of  wickedness  and  moral  pollution.  As 
we  have  already  seen,  the  book  of  Leviticus  gives  many 
dark  hints  of  unnamable  horrors  among  the  Canaanitish 
races :  the  fearful  cruelties  of  the  worship  of  Molech, 
and  the  unmentionable  impurities  of  the  cult  of  Ash- 
toreth  ;  the  prohibition  among  some  of  these  of  female 
chastity,  requiring  that  all  be  morally  sacrificed  ^ — one 
cannot  go  into  these  things.  And  when  now  we  read 
in  Holy  Scripture  that  the  infinitely  pure,  holy,  and 
righteous  God  commanded  that  these  utterly  depraved 
and  abandoned  communities  should  be  extirpated  from 
the  face  of  the  earth,  is  it,  after  all,  so  hard  to  believe 
that  this  should  be  true  ?  Nay,  may  we  not  rather 
with  abundant  reason  say  that  it  would  have  been  far 

^  On    this  subject,   among  other  authorities,  see  Ebrard,  "Apolo- 
getik,"  2  Theil,  pp.  167-90,  especially  p.  173. 


558  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

more  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  character  of  God, 
if  He  had  suffered  them  any  longer  to  exist  ? 

Nor  have  we  yet  fully  stated  the  case.  For  we  must, 
in  addition,  recall  the  fact  that  these  corrupt  communi- 
ties, which  by  this  law  of  the  ban  were  devoted  to 
utter  destruction,  were  in  no  out-of-the-way  corner  of 
the  world,  but  on  one  of  its  chief  highways.  The 
Phoenicians,  for  instance,  more  than  any  people  of  that 
time,  were  the  navigators  and  travellers  of  the  age ;  so 
that  from  Canaan  as  a  centre  this  horrible  moral  pes- 
tilence was  inevitably  carried  by  them  hither  and 
thither,  a  worse  than  the  "  black  death,"  to  the  very 
extremities  of  the  known  world.  Have  we  then  so 
certainly  good  reason  to  call  in  question  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  law  which  here  ordains  that  no  person  thus 
devoted  should  be  ransomed,  but  be  surely  put  to  death  ? 
Rather  are  we  inclined  to  see  in  this  law  of  the  theo- 
cratic kingdom,  and  its  execution  in  Canaan — so  often 
held  up  as  an  illustration  of  the  awful  cruelty  of  the 
old  theocratic  regime — not  only  a  conspicuous  vindica- 
tion of  the  righteousness  and  justice  of  God,  but  a  no 
less  illustrious  manifestation  of  His  mercy ; — of  His 
mercy,  not  merely  to  Israel,  but  to  the  whole  human 
race  of  that  age,  who  because  of  this  deadly  infection 
of  moral  evil  had  otherwise  again  everywhere  sunk  to 
such  unimaginable  depths  of  depravity  as  to  have  re- 
quired a  second  flood  for  the  cleansing  of  the  world. 
This  certainly  was  the  way  in  which  the  Psalmist 
regarded  it,  when  (Psalm  cxxxvi.  17-22)  he  praised 
Jehovah  as  One  who  "  smote  great  kings,  and  slew 
famous  kings,  and  gave  their  land  for  an  heritage,  even 
an  heritage  unto  Israel  His  servant :  for  His  mercy 
endureth  for  ever ; "  a  thought  which  is  again  more 
formally  expressed  (Psalm  Ixii.  12)  in  the  words:  ^'Unto 


xxvii.  1-34-]  CONCERNING   VOWS.  559 


Thee,  O  Lord,  belongeth  mercy  :  for  Thou  renderest  to 
every  man  according  to  his  work." 

Nor  can  we  leave  this  law  of  the  ban  without  noting 
the  very  solemn  suggestion  which  it  contains  that  there 
may  be  in  the  universe  persons  who,  despite  the  great 
redemption,  are  morally  irredeemable,  hopelessly  ob- 
durate ;  for  whom,  under  the  government  of  a  God 
infinitely  righteous  and  merciful,  nothing  remains  but 
the  execution  of  the  ban — the  ''eternal  fire  which  is 
prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels  "  (Matt.  xxv.  41) ; 
"  a  fierceness  of  fire  which  shall  devour  the  adversaries  " 
(Heb.  X.  27).  And  this,  not  merely  although,  but 
BECAUSE  God's  "  mercy  endureth  for  ever." 

The  Law  of  the  Tithe. 

xxvi.  30-33. 

"  And  all  the  tithe  of  the  land,  whether  of  the  seed  of  the  land,  or 
of  the  fruit  of  the  tree,  is  the  Lord's  :  it  is  holy  unto  the  Lord.  And 
if  a  man  will  redeem  aught  of  his  tithe,  he  shall  add  unto  it  the  fifth 
part  thereof.  And  all  the  tithe  of  the  herd  or  the  flock,  whatsoever 
passeth  under  the  rod,  the  tenth  shall  be  holy  unto  the  Lord.  He 
shall  not  search  whether  it  be  good  or  bad,  neither  shall  he  change 
it :  and  if  he  change  it  at  all,  then  both  it  and  that  for  which  it  is 
changed  shall  be  holy;  it  shall  not  be  redeemed." 

Last  of  all  these  exclusions  from  the  vow  is  mentioned 
the  tithe.  "  Whether  of  the  seed  of  the  land,  or  of  the 
herd,  or  of  the  flock,"  it  is  declared  to  be  "  holy  unto 
the  Lord  ; "  "  it  is  the  Lord's."  That  because  of  this 
it  cannot  be  given  to  the  Lord  by  a  special  vow,  al- 
though not  formally  stated,  is  self-evident.  No  man 
can  give  away  what  belongs  to  another,  or  give  God 
what  He  has  already.  In  Numb,  xviii.  21  it  is  said  that 
this  tenth  should  be  given  "  unto  the  children  of  Levi 
...  for  the  service  of  the  tent  of  meeting." 

Most  extraordinary  is  the  contention  of  Wellhausen 


56o  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 


and  others,  that  since  in  Deuteronomy  no  tithe  is  men- 
tioned other  than  of  the  product  of  the  land,  therefore, 
because  of  the  mention  here  also  of  a  tithe  of  the  herd 
and  the  flock,  we  must  infer  that  we  have  here  a  late 
interpolation  into  the  '' priest-code,"  marking  a  time 
when  now  the  exactions  of  the  priestly  caste  had  been 
extended  to  the  utmost  limit.  This  is  not  the  place  to 
go  into  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  law  of  Deu- 
teronomy to  that  which  we  have  here ;  but  we  should 
rather,  with  Dillmann,^  from  the  same  premisses  argue 
the  exact  opposite,  namely,  that  we  have  here  the  very 
earliest  form  of  the  tithe  law.  For  that  an  ordinance 
so  extending  the  rights  of  the  priestly  class  should 
have  been  "  smuggled  "  into  the  Sinaitic  laws  after  the 
days  of  Nehemiah,  as  Wellhausen,  Reuss,  and  Kuenen 
suppose,  is  simply  "  unthinkable ; "  *  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  when  we  find  already  in  Gen.  xxviii.  22  Jacob 
promising  unto  the  Lord  the  tenth  of  all  that  He  should 
give  him,  at  a  time  when  he  was  living  the  life  of  a 
nomad  herdsman,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should 
have  meant  "  all,  excepting  the  increase  of  the  flocks 
and  herds,"  which  were  his  chief  possession. 

The  truth  is  that  the  dedication  of  a  tithe,  in  various 
forms,  as  an  acknowledgment  of  dependence  upon  and 
reverence  to  God,  is  one  of  the  most  widely-spread  and 
best-attested  practices  of  the  most  remote  antiquity. 
We  read  of  it  among  the  Romans,  the  Greeks,  the 
ancient  Pelasgians,  the  Carthaginians,  and  the  Phoeni- 
cians ;  and  in  the  Pentateuch,  in  full  accord  with  all 
this,  we  find  not  only  Jacob,  as  in  the  passage  cited, 
but,  at  a  yet  earlier  time,  Abraham,  more  than  four 
hundred   years   before    Moses,   giving   tithes  to   Mel- 

*  See  "Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  pp.  635-638. 

*  See  "  Undenkbar ; "  so  Dillmann,  op.  cit.,  p.  638. 


xxvii.  1-34.]  CONCERNING   VOWS.  561 


chizedek.  The  law,  in  the  exact  form  in  which  we 
have  it  here,  is  therefore  in  perfect  harmony  with  all 
that  we  know  of  the  customs  both  of  the  Hebrews 
and  surrounding  peoples,  from  a  time  even  much  earlier 
than  that  of  the  Exodus. 

Very  naturally  the  reference  to  the  tithe,  as  thus 
from  of  old  belonging  to  the  Lord,  and  therefore 
incapable  of  being  vowed,  gives  occasion  to  other 
regulations  respecting  it.  Like  unclean  animals, 
houses,  and  lands  which  had  been  vowed,  so  also  the 
tithe,  or  any  part  of  it,  might  be  redeemed  by  the 
individual  for  his  own  use,  upon  payment  of  the  usual 
mulct  of  one-fifth  additional  to  its  assessed  value.  So 
also  it  is  further  ordered,  with  special  regard  to  the 
tithe  of  the  herd  and  the  flock,  **that  whatsoever 
passeth  under  the  rod,"  i.e.y  whatever  is  counted,  as 
the  manner  was,  by  being  made  to  pass  into  or  out  of 
the  fold  under  the  herdsman's  staff,  *'  the  tenth  " — that 
is,  every  tenth  animal  as  in  its  turn  it  comes — "  shall 
be  holy  to  the  Lord."  The  owner  was  not  to  search 
whether  the  animal  thus  selected  was  good  or  bad, 
nor  change  it,  so  as  to  give  the  Lord  a  poorer  animal, 
and  keep  a  better  one  for  himself;  and  if  he  broke  this 
law,  then,  as  in  the  case  of  the  unclean  beast  vowed, 
as  the  penalty  he  was  to  forfeit  to  the  sanctuary  both 
the  original  and  its  attempted  substitute,  and  also  lose 
the  right  of  redemption. 

A  very  practical  question  emerges  just  here,  as  to 
the  continued  obligation  of  this  law  of  the  tithe. 
Although  we  hear  nothing  of  the  tithe  in  the  first 
Christian  centuries,  it  began  to  be  advocated  in  the 
fourth  century  by  Jerome,  Augustine,  and  others,  and,  as 
is  well  known,  the  system  of  ecclesiastical  tithing  soon 
became  established  as  the  law  of  the  Church.    Although 


562  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

the  system  by  no  means  disappeared  with  the  Reforma- 
tion, but  passed  from  the  Roman  into  the  Reformed 
Churches,  yet  the  modern  spirit  has  become  more  and 
more  adverse  to  the  mediaeval  system,  till,  with  the 
progressive  hostility  in  society  to  all  connection  of  the 
Church  and  the  State,  and  in  the  Church  the  develop- 
ment of  a  sometimes  exaggerated  voluntaryism,  tithing 
as  a  system  seems  likely  to  disappear  altogether,  as  it 
has  already  from  the  most  of  Christendom. 

But  in  consequence  of  this,  and  the  total  severance 
of  the  Church  from  the  State,  in  the  United  States  and 
the  Dominion  of  Canada,  the  necessity  of  securing  ade- 
quate provision  for  the  maintenance  and  extension  of 
the  Church,  is  more  and  more  directing  the  attention  of 
those  concerned  in  the  practical  economics  of  the  Church, 
to  this  venerable  institution  of  the  tithe  as  the  solution 
of  many  difficulties.  Among  such  there  are  many 
who,  while  quite  opposed  to  any  enforcement  of  a  law 
of  tithing  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church  by  the  civil 
power,  nevertheless  earnestly  maintain  that  the  law  of 
the  tithe,  as  we  have  it  here,  is  of  permanent  obligation 
and  binding  on  the  conscience  of  every  Christian. 
What  is  the  truth  in  the  matter  ?  In  particular,  what 
is  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  ? 

In  attempting  to  settle  for  ourselves  this  question,  it 
is  to  be  observed,  in  order  to  clear  thinking  on  this 
subject,  that  in  the  law  of  the  tithe  as  here  declared 
there  are  two  elements — the  one  moral,  the  other  legal, 
— which  should  be  carefully  distinguished.  First  and 
fundamental  is  the  principle  that  it  is  our  duty  to  set 
apart  to  God  a  certain  fixed  proportion  of  our  income. 
The  other  and — technically  speaking — positive  element 
in  the  law  is  that  which  declares  that  the  proportion 
to  be  given  to  the  Lord  is  precisely  one-tenth.     Now, 


xxvii.  1-34.]  CONCERNING   VOWS.  S^- 


of  these  two,  the  first  principle  is  distinctly  recognised 
and  reaffirmed  in  the  New  Testament  as  of  continued 
validity  in  this  dispensation  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
as  to  the  precise  proportion  of  our  income  to  be  thus 
set  apart  for  the  Lord,  the  New  Testament  writers  are 
everywhere  silent. 

As  regards  the  first  principle,  the  Apostle  Paul, 
writing  to  the  Corinthians,  orders  that  "  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week  " — the  day  of  the  primitive  Christian 
worship — '*  every  one"  shall  ^May  by  him  in  store,  as 
God  hath  prospered  him."  He  adds  that  he  had  given 
the  same  command  also  to  the  Churches  of  Galatia 
(i  Cor.  xvi.  I,  2).  This  most  clearly  gives  apostolic 
sanction  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  tithe, 
namely,  that  a  definite  portion  of  our  income  should 
be  set  apart  for  God.  While,  on  the  other  hand, 
neither  in  this  connection,  where  a  mention  of  the  law 
of  the  tithe  might  naturally  have  been  expected,  if  it 
had  been  still  binding  as  to  the  letter,  nor  in  any  other 
place  does  either  the  Apostle  Paul  or  any  other  New 
Testament  writer  intimate  that  the  Levitical  law,  requir- 
ing the  precise  proportion  of  a  tenth,  was  still  in  force ; 
— a  fact  which  is  the  more  noteworthy  that  so  much  is 
said  of  the  duty  of  Christian  benevolence. 

To  this  general  statement  with  regard  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  New  Testament  on  this  subject,  the  words 
of  our  Lord  to  the  Pharisees  (Matt,  xxiii.  23),  regarding 
their  tithing  of  ^'  mint  and  anise  and  cummin  " — *'  these 
ye  ought  to  have  done  " — cannot  be  taken  as  an  ex- 
ception, or  as  proving  that  the  law  is  binding  for  this 
dispensation  ;  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  present 
dispensation  had  not  at  that  time  yet  begun,  and  those 
to  whom  He  spoke  were  still  under  the  Levitical  law, 
the  authority  of  which  He  there  reaffirms.     From  these 


S64  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

facts  we  conclude  that  the  law  of  these  verses,  in  so 
far  as  it  requires  the  setting  apart  to  God  of  a  certain 
definite  proportion  of  our  income,  is  doubtless  of  con- 
tinued and  lasting  obligation ;  but  that,  in  so  far  as  it 
requires  from  all  alike  the  exact  proportion  of  one-tenth, 
it  is  binding  on  the  conscience  no  longer. 

Nor  is  it  difficult  to  see  why  the  New  Testament 
should  not  lay  down  this  or  any  other  precise  propor- 
tion of  giving  to  income,  as  a  universal  law.  It  is  only 
according  to  the  characteristic  usage  of  the  New 
Testament  law  to  leave  to  the  individual  conscience 
very  much  regarding  the  details  of  worship  and 
conduct,  which  under  the  Levitical  law  was  regulated 
b}^  specific  rules ;  which  the  Apostle  Paul  explains 
(Gal.  iv.  1-5)  by  reference  to  the  fact  that  the  earlier 
method  was  intended  for  and  adapted  to  a  lower  and 
more  immature  stage  of  religious  development ;  even 
as  a  child,  during  his  minority,  is  kept  under  guardians 
and  stewards,  from  whose  authority,  when  he  comes 
of  age,  he  is  free. 

But,  still  further,  it  seems  to  be  often  forgotten  by 
those  who  argue  for  the  present  and  permanent 
obligation  of  this  law,  that  it  was  here  for  the  first  time 
formally  appointed  by  God  as  a  binding  law,  in  con- 
nection with  a  certain  divinely  instituted  system  of 
theocratic  government,  which,  if  carried  out,  would,  as 
we  have  seen,  effectively  prevent  excessive  accumulations 
of  wealth  in  the  hands  of  individuals,  and  thus  secure 
for  the  Israelites,  in  a  degree  the  world  has  never  seen, 
an  equal  distribution  of  property.  In  such  a  system 
it  is  evident  that  it  would  be  possible  to  exact  a 
certain  fixed  and  definite  proportion  of  income  for 
sacred  purposes,  with  the  certainty  that  the  requirement 
would  work  with  perfect  justice  and  fairness  to  all. 


xxvii.  I-34.J  CONCERNING   VOWS.  565 

But  with  us,  social  and  economic  conditions  are  so 
very  different,  wealth  is  so  very  unequally  distributed, 
that  no  such  law  as  that  of  the  tithe  could  be  made  to 
work  otherwise  than  unequally  and  unfairly.  To  the 
very  poor  it  must  often  be  a  heavy  burden ;  to  the 
very  rich,  a  proportion  so  small  as  to  be  a  practical 
exemption.  While,  for  the  former,  the  law,  if  insisted 
on,  would  sometimes  require  a  poor  man  to  take  bread 
out  of  the  mouth  of  wife  and  children,  it  would  still 
leave  the  millionaire  with  thousands  to  spend  on  need- 
less luxuries.  The  latter  might  often  more  easily  give 
nine-tenths  of  his  income  than  the  former  could  give 
one-twentieth. 

It  is  thus  no  surprising  thing  that  the  inspired  men 
who  laid  the  foundations  of  the  New  Testament  Church 
did  not  reaffirm  the  law  of  the  tithe  as  to  the  letter. 
And  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  let  us  not  forget  that 
the  law  of  the  tithe,  as  regards  the  moral  element  of 
the  law,  is  still  in  force.  It  forbids  the  Christian  to 
leave,  as  so  often,  the  amount  he  will  give  for  the  Lord's 
work,  to  impulse  and  caprice.  Statedly  and  conscien- 
tiously he  is  to  "lay  by  him  in  store  as  the  Lord 
hath  prospered  him."  If  any  ask  how  much  should 
the  proportion  be,  one  might  say  that  by  fair  inference 
the  tenth  might  safely  be  taken  as  an  average  minimum 
of  giving,  counting  rich  and  poor  together.  But  the 
New  Testament  (2  Cor.  viii.  7,  9)  answers  after  a 
different  and  most  characteristic  manner :  "  See  that 
ye  abound  in  this  grace.  .  .  .  For  ye  know  the  grace 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that,  though  He  was  rich, 
yet  for  your  sakes  He  became  poor,  that  ye  through  His 
poverty  might  become  rich."  Let  there  be  but  regular 
and  systematic  giving  to  the  Lord's  work,  under  the 
law  of  a  fixed  proportion  of  gifts  to  income,  and  under 


S66  THE  BOOK  OF  LEVITICUS. 

the  holy  inspiration  of  this  sacred  remembrance  of  the 
grace  of  our  Lord,  and  then  the  Lord's  treasury  will 
never  be  empty,  nor  the  Lord  be  robbed  of  His  tithe. 

And  so  hereupon  the  book  of  Leviticus  closes  with 
the  formal  declaration — referring,  no  doubt,  strictly 
speaking,  to  the  regulations  of  this  last  chapter — that 
'*  these  are  the  commandments,  which  the  Lord  com- 
manded Moses  for  the  children  of  Israel  in  mount  Sinai." 
The  words  as  explicitly  assert  Mosaic  origin  and  auth- 
ority for  these  last  laws  of  the  book,  as  the  opening 
words  asserted  the  same  for  the  law  of  the  offerings 
with  which  it  begins.  The  significance  of  these  repeated 
declarations  respecting  the  origin  and  authority  of  the 
laws  contained  in  this  book  has  been  repeatedly  pointed 
out,  and  nothing  further  need  be  added  here. 

To  sum  up  all : — what  the  Lord,  in  this  book  of 
Leviticus,  has  said,  was  not  for  Israel  alone.  The 
supreme  lesson  of  this  law  is  for  men  now,  for  the 
Church  of  the  New  Testament  as  well.  For  the  indi- 
vidual and  for  the  nation,  holiness,  consisting  in  full 
consecration  of  body  and  soul  to  the  Lord,  and  separa- 
tion from  all  that  defileth,  is  the  Divine  ideal,  to  the 
attainment  of  which  Jew  and  Gentile  alike  are  called. 
And  the  only  way  of  its  attainment  is  through  the 
atoning  Sacrifice,  and  the  mediation  of  the  High  Priest 
appointed  of  God  ;  and  the  only  evidence  of  its  attain- 
ment is  a  joyful  obedience,  hearty  and  unreserved,  to 
all  the  commandments  of  God.  For  us  all  it  stands 
written:  '*Ye  shall  be  holy;  for  I,  Jehovah,  your 
God,  am  holy." 


Printed  by  Hazell,  Watson,  &  Viney,  London  and  Aylesbury,  England. 


■       .-  ti>, 


V     ,  V  ■    >  r  .    '.'^ 


•    -»  V    . ..« 


•  -i 


>l'' 


\-\  » 


••;/■; 


i  ' 


A 


